THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Kamuta [2016] WSSC 174

Case name: 	Police v Kamuta	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 174	
		
Decision date: 	9 September 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) v AKENESE KAMUTA  female of Vaiusu Uta and Tailefaga Fagaloa
(Accused)

Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tafaoimalo Tuala Warren	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	•	The accused is convicted of intentional damage and ordered to come up for sentence in 12 months pursuant to s 113 Criminal Procedure Act 1972. She is not to reoffend. If she breaches this condition, she will be resentenced. 
•	The Court makes a further order pursuant to s113(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1972 that the accused pay restitution of $50.00 to complainant and $50 in Prosecution costs. 
•	The accused is convicted of the charge of threatening words and is discharged.

Representation: 	F. Masei for Prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords: 	intentional damage and threatening words	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section.184(2)(a), section 4(g)	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

AKENESE KAMUTA  female of Vaiusu Uta and Tailefaga Fagaloa
Accused

Counsel:
F. Masei for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 9 September 2016
S E N T E N C E
The charge
1.	The accused appears for sentence on one  charge of intentional damage , contrary to s.184(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and one charge of threatening words pursuant to s 4(g) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961. This has a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment or a fine of $200.00.
2.	The accused was granted leave to change her not guilty pleas to guilty pleas on 12 August 2016. 
The offending 
3.	According to the summary of facts admitted by the accused, on 22 March 2016, the complainant found the son of the accused opening their water pipe. The complainant told off the son of the accused. The son of the accused told the accused. The accused approached the accused and started making a fuss about her son.   The complainant went to her house. The accused walked to the complainant’s house and started punching on the door. The door fell on the ground and broke. The accused threatened to burn the complainant’s house with the complainant inside.
4.	The accused is the niece of the complainant.
Background of the accused
5.	The accused is 43 years old, married with six children. She works at Apia Concrete Products. 
6.	The accused has no previous convictions.  
The Victim
7.	The Prosecution did not provide a victim impact report to the Court.
8.	The Summary of Facts says that the victim is 51 years old, married with seven children.
9.	The victim confirms through Prosecution that reconciliation of this matter has taken place. 
The Aggravating Features of the Offending
10.	It is aggravating that the offence took place within the context of a domestic relationship. The accused is the complainant’s niece and this relationship falls within the definition of a ‘domestic relationship’ contained in section 2 of the Family Safety Act 2013. Section 17 of same Act states that the Court shall consider this fact as an aggravating factor when determining sentence.
11.	It is aggravating that the actions of the accused damaged property belonging to the complainant.
12.	It is aggravating that she threatened to burn the complainant’s house with the complainant inside.
Mitigating Factors
13.	The reconciliation between the accused and the victim will be taken into account.
14.	She will be given some credit for her belated guilty pleas to the charges.
Discussion
15.	In cases where there is domestic violence, I am guided by the s.17 Family Safety Act 2013 in sentencing. This is a case of domestic violence whereby the offence took place within the context of a domestic relationship. Therefore the Court must have regard to, inter alia, the conduct of the offender towards the victim since the offence and any matter which indicates whether the offender;
1.	Accepts responsibility for the offence and its consequences;
2.	Has taken steps to make amends to a victim, including action to address the negative impacts of the offence on the victim; or
3.	May pose any further threat to a victim.
16.	The Court must also have regard to evidence revealing the offender’s;
4.	Attitude to the offence;
5.	Intention to address the offending behaviour; 
6.	Likelihood of continuing to pose a threat to the victim; and
7.	Whether the offender has sought and received counselling or other assistance to address the offending behaviour, or is willing to undertake such counselling or seek such assistance.
17.	Her apology to the victim indicates that she accepts responsibility for the offence and her remorse is indicative of her attitude towards the offence. She has expressed remorse to Probation and in Court which I find is genuine.
18.	Having considered the aggravating factors relating to the offending and the mitigating factors personal to the accused as well as taking into account the sentencing objectives of retribution, deterrence, the need for protection of society, and rehabilitation, I have decided that it is appropriate to impose a non-custodial sentence in this case.
Sentence
19.	The accused is convicted of intentional damage and ordered to come up for sentence in 12 months pursuant to s 113 Criminal Procedure Act 1972. She is not to reoffend. If she breaches this condition, she will be resentenced. 
20.	The Court makes a further order pursuant to s113(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1972 that the accused pay restitution of $50.00 to complainant and $50 in Prosecution costs. 
21.	The accused is convicted of the charge of threatening words and is discharged.
JUSTICE TAFAOIMALO TUALA WARREN