THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Vaisola [2017] WSSC 131

Case name: 	Police v Vaisola	
		
Citation: 	[2017] WSSC 131	
		
Sentence date: 	23 October  2017	
		
Parties: 

	POLICE (Prosecution) v MATI ANETONE VAISOLA male of  Saanapu
Accused
	
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	The Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren	
		
On appeal from:

Order:	

1.	You are convicted of the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to supervision for 12 months. A special condition of that sentence is that you are to attend an anger management programme as directed by Probation. You are ordered to pay court costs of $300 forthwith, in default 3 weeks imprisonment.

Representation: 	R Masinalupe for Prosecution
Accused Unrepresented 
	
Catchwords: 	Causing Grievous bodily harm
	
Words and phrases:		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, section 118(1)	
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

MATI ANETONE VAISOLA male of Saanapu
Accused

Counsel:
R Masinalupe for Prosecution
Accused Unrepresented

Sentence: 23 October 2017

S E N T E N C E
The charge
1.	The accused is from Saanapu. He appears for sentence on one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, pursuant to s.118(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. 
2.	He entered a guilty plea to the charge on 9 September 2016.
The offending 
3.	The Prosecution summary of facts admitted by the accused says that on 8 June 2016, the victim was helping the accused to build his house. The victim accidentally dropped a rock cracking one of the foundation bricks. The victim and the accused started arguing. As the victim was picking up another rock, the accused picked up a piece of timber and swung it at the victim. The victim was able to use his left arm to shield himself. As a result the victim’s left arm was fractured and lacerated which required stitches. The victim underwent surgery and was hospitalised for 11 days.  
The accused
4.	As shown in the pre-sentence report, the accused is 49 years old, married with 6 children.
5.	He works on the plantation to support his family.
6.	There are two testimonials from his faifeau and sui o le nuu.
7.	The accused expresses remorse in his pre-sentence report and in Court.
8.	He has no previous convictions.
The victim
9.	According to the victim impact report provided to the Court, the victim is 47years old from Saanapu. 
10.	He is neighbours with the accused. 
11.	He says that the injury to his arm has resulted in him feeling pain from his elbow which has restricted his movement. It has affected his ability to work on his plantation and provide for his family. The incident has also caused financial stress by way of hospital and medical bills, as he needs to go to hospital regularly for check-ups. 
12.	He underwent surgery and was hospitalised for 11 days. 
13.	He confirms that the accused and his family have approached him and have apologised. He has accepted the apology and wishes to move on with his life.
Aggravating features of the offending
14.	It is aggravating that the victim suffered an injury to his left arm requiring stitches and surgery.
15.	It is also aggravating that the accused used a weapon, namely a piece of timber to inflict injury.
16.	The victim did nothing to provoke the attack from the accused. It was an attack which was unexpected and unprovoked. 
Mitigating Factors
17.	His favourable testimonials from his church and village leaders are taken into account. Both say he serves his family, the village and the church faithfully and with humility. The fact that he is a first offender does give credence to these testimonials. He has been of good character, and this offending was out of character. 
18.	I take into account his apology to the victim which was accepted.
19.	His early guilty plea to the charge will be taken into account.
Discussion
20.	There is an epidemic of violence occurring in our society. The Court’s response is encapsulated in the words of Vaai J in Police v Tinotaua [2016] WSSC 67 (22 March 2016);
“People who come before the Court for sentence on charges involving violence must be dealt with very sternly, far too many lives have been lost and serious injuries have been caused through violence and the use of a weapon as a result of the violence.” 
21.	The circumstances as I see here is an unprovoked attack upon a victim using a weapon, being a piece of timber. The injuries sustained were significant in that the victim underwent surgery, and as a consequence this affected his ability to provide for his family. These circumstances require deterrence.
22.	However, what is glaring to me is that you have gone through 49 years of life with an untarnished record.
23.	In sentencing we must keep in mind the protection of the public, inter alia.  I do not think that is a major concern in this case. I do not assess your risk of reoffending to be high. 
24.	What often creeps into sentencing and rightly or wrongly can play a part in sentencing is mercy and compassion.  I pay regard to these in this case. 
25.	Having taken into account the aggravating features of the offending (there being no mitigating features of the offending), I find that for you, a non-custodial sentence is appropriate today. I am concerned about the kind of message that this will send out to the public because there is a strong need for deterrence in violent offences, but I have considered all the circumstances of this case, including your individual circumstances and have found that this experience alone will act as a major deterrence for you. 
26.	However this must never happen again. You are at a stage in your life where your responses should be different from your response in this case. By way of sentence today, the Court will ensure that this does not happen again. There will be a focus on addressing your anger, so that if a similar situation arises, you will not resort to violence.
Sentence
27.	You are convicted of the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to supervision for 12 months. A special condition of that sentence is that you are to attend an anger management programme as directed by Probation. You are ordered to pay court costs of $300 forthwith, in default 3 weeks imprisonment.

JUSTICE TAFAOIMALO LEILANI TUALA-WARREN