IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Iloilo [2015] WSSC 154

Case name: 	Police v Iloilo	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 154	
		
Decision date: 	29 June 2015	
		
Parties: 	The Police (Prosecution)
Toma also known as Suaava Iloilo, male of Mutiatele Aleipata. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Courthouse, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On the charge of causing grievous bodily harm convicted and sentenced to 2½ years in prison.  Any time spent in custody to be deducted from that period.  
On the second charge of actual bodily harm that is a duplicate charge that is dismissed.  For this matter you will serve 2½ years in prison Toma	
		
Representation: 	Ms Amosa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	-	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
THE POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	TOMA also known as SUAAVA ILOILO, male of Mutiatele Aleipata.
Defendant

Counsel:	Ms Amosa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence:	29 June 2015

SENTENCE
1.	The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges one of grievous bodily harm and one of actual bodily harm.  The police summary of facts which he admitted this morning says he is a 22 year old married male of Mutiatele Aleipata.  The victim is his uncle who is 55 years old also married from Aleipata.  
2.	The summary says on Saturday, 02 May 2015 about 9:00 pm at night the defendant was at the victims pool parlor at his house.  The defendant had been drinking and playing pool for money.  During the night the defendant and the victim had a disagreement over how much the defendant won in his pool games.  Defendant claimed the victim owed him money.  An altercation resulted and to calm things down the victim gave the prize money to the defendant and asked him to leave.  The police summary says the defendant then packed his three empty beer bottles into his bag and left.  
3.	As the defendant was leaving he heard the victim telling the defendants father about the defendants disrespectful behaviour.  When the defendant arrived home his father beat him because of what he had been told by the uncle.  This angered the defendant who then returned to the victims house.  
4.	He saw the victim sitting with his back towards him talking to other men of the village.  Defendant took out one of his empty beer bottles and threw it towards the victim but missed.  Hit the victims house causing the victim to come out of the house and approach the defendant.  Defendant took out another beer bottle and threw it towards the victim.  This one connected, hit the victim in the eye and fractured his front left cheek bone.  
5.	The victim was rushed to Lalomanu District Hospital for medical attention and because of the severity of his injuries was transferred to Motootua.  The victim impact report shows the victims injury to be very serious.  According to that report he has permanent loss of vision in his left eye and needs surgery in New Zealand so that the pupil of the eye can lie properly.  The report also indicates how the injuries have cost money to the victim and have affected his ability to provide for his family.  
6.	I accept that in this case the defendant did not intend the severity of the injury to necessarily be the consequence of his actions.  But these injuries are the result Toma of your recklessly and with intention to injure throwing the beer bottle at the face of the victim.  You threw an empty beer bottle not at the body of the victim but at his head in particular his face.  The summary of facts also indicates when you went home you had the option of staying home, sleeping off your intoxication and controlling your anger.  Instead you armed yourself with the beer bottles and returned to the pool parlor seeking revenge.  The police summary staes you initially attacked the victim from behind.  
7.	Circumstances of this matter plus the severe result of your actions means an imprisonment penalty is unavoidable.  I regret that it will impact on your wife and family but it is necessary to hold you accountable for what you did to your uncle.  This is also necessary to send a message of deterrence to you and to others that behaviour like this is simply not acceptable.  Too often our people when they get intoxicated and angry resort to weapons against other people.  
8.	The maximum penalty for the offending you have undertaking is 10 years in prison.  However there are mitigating factors in your favour which I will take into consideration in assessing a suitable penalty.  Your penalty you can regarded as light compared to the loss of the eye that your actions caused.  
9.	An appropriate start point for sentence is 5 years in prison.  You are entitled to certain deductions which I will now make on your behalf.  For your guilty plea I deduct one-quarter of the sentence because that has saved the time of the court and also the resources of the State.  I deduct one-quarter of penalty that leaves a balance of 45 months.  You have a good pre-sentence report from the probation office.  It is supported by references from your Bishop and your pulenuu.  You have a clean criminal record. For that I will deduct 6 months from your penalty, leaves 39 months in prison.  Pre-sentence report confirms you and your father made an apology to your uncle which your uncle has accepted.  I deduct 3 months to acknowledge that apology, leaves 36 months.  Pre-sentence report confirmed the village council penalty, for that I will deduct 6 months, leaves 30 months in prison.  
10.	On the charge of causing grievous bodily harm convicted and sentenced to 2½ years in prison.  Any time spent in custody to be deducted from that period.  
11.	On the second charge of actual bodily harm that is a duplicate charge that is dismissed.  For this matter you will serve 2½ years in prison Toma.  

JUSTICE NELSON