IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lila [2015] WSSC 234

Case name: 	Police v Lila	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 234	
		
Decision date: 	03 August  2015	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution)
ATONIO LILA, male of Laulii. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 	S397/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	An appropriate term would be 12 months in prison.  But I reduce that Atonio to 6 months because of the mitigating factors in your favour namely your first offence, your good background and your guilty plea which saves some time but not much.  From that 6 months your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted.  That term is to be followed by 12 months of supervision under the probation office with special conditions firstly no alcohol, secondly stay away from the complainant and the complainants fanua.	
		
Representation: 	O Tagaloa and C 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:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	ATONIO LILA, male of Laulii.
Defendant

Counsel:	O Tagaloa and C Amosa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence:	03 August 2015

SENTENCE
1.	The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge that at Laulii on New Years day 2015 he did intentionally caused actual bodily harm to the complainant also a male of that village.  He was charge together with his brother Lesi but because Lesi failed to appear for his case a warrant is outstanding for his arrest.  When his matter was called for sentencing the defendant disputed relevant aspects of the police summary of facts necessitating the police to call witnesses.  These witnesses being not only the complainant Talatofi Fata Seufale but also an eye witness Paulo Levi.  
2.	Talatofi’s evidence was that the two defendant brothers were swearing and causing a commotion in front of their house on New Years day.  So he came out and exchanged words with the brothers leading to a fight between Talatofi and Lesi. During the course of that fight the defendant intervened and threw a rock which hit Tautofi in the head causing an injury requiring four (4) stitches.  The incident did not stop there but it carried on between the complainant and Lesi.  Although the defendant ceased to take part.  
3.	The eye witness confirmed Lesi was the most aggressive of the two brothers and that the defendant had already been injured on the arm by another person of their drinking party when he threw the rock at the complainant.  The eye witness was unshaken in his evidence that he clearly saw the defendant throw the rock which injured the complainants head.  
4.	The defendant denied doing this and maintained in his evidence what he told the probation office namely that the complainant and him were struggling they fell down and the head injury was caused when the complainant hit his head on a rock.  I do not accept your version Atonio.  By your own admission you had been drinking all the previous night.  Consuming hard liquor spirits.  This drinking continued into the next day when you participated in drinking a further bottle of vodka.  You would have been very drunk by the time the incident occurred around lunch time.  I prefer instead the evidence of the sober complainant and the eye witness.  They both said you threw a rock at the complainant which hit him in the head.  
5.	Your actions are punishable at law by a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison.  I understand that you were trying to help your brother.  But use of rocks by drunken youths is becoming far too common a crime in our country and in some cases has led to unnecessary death.  Such behaviour is to be soundly discouraged and condemned.  What you did was excessive.   You were out of control because you were drunk.  If you cannot drink sensibly better to give it up Atonio.  An imprisonment term is appropriate to mark the seriousness and volatility of your actions and to give you time to rethink your life and what you are doing sir.  But a long term in the circumstances is not necessary.  Just long enough to send you a message and to send other young men of our community the same message.  Namely that drunken and out of control behaviour like this can lead to Tafaigata.  
6.	An appropriate term would be 12 months in prison.  But I reduce that Atonio to 6 months because of the mitigating factors in your favour namely your first offence, your good background and your guilty plea which saves some time but not much.  From that 6 months your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted.  That term is to be followed by 12 months of supervision under the probation office with special conditions firstly no alcohol, secondly stay away from the complainant and the complainants fanua.  Ua e malamalama i le faaiuga o lau mataupu Atonio?  (Defendant said yes).  Tausisi lelei i tutuuga ia o le aua e te tagofia le ava malosi ma aua nei toe latalata i le sa tagi poo le fanua a le sa tagi i le mataupu lenei.  Aua a maua oe ua e solia mea ia ona toe aumai foi lea o oe i luma o le faamasinoga ona toe faatigaina foi laia o lau susuga.  
JUSTICE NELSON