Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Olano [2015] WSSC 8 (10 February 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Olano [2015] WSSC 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NOs: S4373/14-S4394/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

ASOVALU OLANO male Satapuala

Accused

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 10 February 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused Asovalu Olano is a 25 year old male of Satapuala. He appears for sentence on one charge of robbery, contrary to s.176 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. He pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. On Friday 28 November 2014, the victim, who is a 15 year old male from Satapuala, was waiting at the Mulifanua wharf for a friend of his older brother who was coming with a basket of fish on the ferry from Savaii. The victim was to take this basket of fish for his family at Samatau.
3. When the victim received the basket of fish, he went to catch a bus to go home. While waiting for a bus, the victim was approached by the accused and they had a conversation. The accused then asked the victim where he comes from to which the victim replied he comes from Samatau. The accused then threatened to beat up the victim to revenge a beating he got from the youths of Samatau during a night dance.
4. When the accused saw a bus approaching, he walked away. He returned to the victim when the bus did not stop. He then continued to make threatening remarks at the victim. When the accused saw a car approaching he told the victim to give him the pair of sandals he was wearing. When the victim did not respond, the accused told the victim to choose whether to give up his sandals or he will take the basket of fish. Fearing for his safety, the victim gave his pair of sandals to the accused. When the accused got the pair of sandals, he asked the victim if he wants to be smart ( E ke fia poko ). The accused then threatened to shoot the victim and reached inside a bag he was carrying as if to draw something out. I am satisfied from the disputed summary of facts hearing that what the accused pretended to draw out from his bag was not a gun but a hot water bottle with a black cap which the accused used to take his tea to work. The victim, who was already in a state of fear, thought it was a pistol and became more scared. The accused who was already wearing the victim’s sandals, then stopped a car, took the victim’s basket of fish and left in the car. The estimated value of the pair of sandals was $10 and that of the basket of fish was $100.
   

The accused

5. As the pre-sentence report shows, the accused is married with one child. He finished secondary school at Year 12. He then attended a technical teaching college. At the time of the offending, he was employed as a carpentry apprentice with a construction company. The accused is a first offender and the testimonies from his mother, the pastor of his church, and the pulenuu of his village show that he had been a person of good character prior to this offending.
6. The pre-sentence report also shows that the accused’s mother and uncle have made an apology to the family of the victim and presented a large fine mat and $100. The apology was accepted and this matter has been reconciled. The father of the victim has written to the Court through the probation service requesting that this matter be withdrawn as it has been reconciled.
7. The pre-sentence report further shows that the accused had expressed remorse to the probation service. He has also apologised to the Court for what he had done to the victim. It appears that what he did to the victim was to revenge a beating he had got from the youths of the victim’s village.

Discussion

8. I have given careful consideration to the nature of this offending and the mitigating features personal to the accused to the accused as offender. These mitigating features are the accused’s first offender status and previous good character, the apology by the accused’s mother and uncle to the family of the victim which was accepted, the reconciliation that followed, the consequential request by the victim’s father to withdraw this matter, and the accused’s guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. The conclusion I have come to is that a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.
9. The accused is given a suspended sentence of 7 months. If he does not re-offend within that period of time, then that is the end of this matter. But if he re-offends within that time, then he would be brought back and sentenced for this offence as well as on the new offence. It is therefore in the best interests of the accused not to re-offend within the next 7 months.

Honourable Chief Justice Sapolu