IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taateo [2024] WSSC 139 (15 November 2024)

Case name: 	Police v Taateo	
		
Citation: 	[2024] WSSC 139	
		
Decision date: 	15 November 2024	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) and SEMI TAATEO, male of Salepoua’e Saleimoa (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court - CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The defendant, is convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment less any time in custody.
The defendant will be eligible for parole after serving half of his imprisonment term	
		
Representation: 	T. Fesili for Prosecution
M. Lemisio for the Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	Manslaughter – first offender – early guilty plea – provocation –  	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 92, 102 and 108.	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Failauga [2019] WSSC 81.	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

SEMI TAATEO, male of Salepoua’e, Saleimoa

Defendant

Counsel:	T Fesili for Prosecution
M Lemisio for the Defendant

Sentence:	15 November 2024

SENTENCING OF TUATAGALOA J
1. 	The accused appears for sentencing on the charge of manslaughter which caused the death of Sonny Karl Vili, male of Salepoua’e, Saleimoa. The penalty is maximum life imprisonment.
The offending
2. 	According to the Summary of Facts (“SoF”), on the Friday, 2nd February 2024 in the afternoon after planting taro for the deceased’s brother-in-law, Sam, at his plantation, both the defendant and the deceased bought beers and started drinking under a tree in front of the deceased’s house and later moved to the front veranda of the deceased’s house when it was getting dark. At some point, Sam arrived and the defendant asked him for some money to buy more beer. The defendant took Sam to buy more beer for him and the three of them continued drinking. It was then that the defendant starting cracking jokes at the deceased which made the deceased angry and he retaliated by swearing and made angry remarks at the defendant. Accordingly, they traded insults whereby the deceased stood up and punched the defendant. A fist fight ensued between the defendant and the deceased where they both fell on to steps outside the veranda with the defendant on top of the deceased. The defendant sat on the deceased’s stomach and continued punching the deceased on the face. Shortly after, the defendant got off the deceased and went home leaving the deceased lying where they both fell. Both the SoF and Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) say that the defendant woke up early the next morning and noticed that the lights were still on at the deceased’s house. He walked over and found the deceased still lying where he had left him the night before. The defendant in the PSR said that the deceased was snoring but he noticed a pool of blood next to where the deceased was lying. The defendant went and got a car and took the deceased to the Leulumoega District Hospital whereby the deceased died shortly upon arrival.
The injuries
3. 	A post mortem examination was carried out on 20 March 2024 whereby from blunt force the cause of death was severe brain haemorrhage due to severe traumatic head injuries and severe traumatic chest injuries.
4. 	According to the post mortem report there were injuries to the right side of the entire vicinity of the mouth and upper face of the deceased. There was also a fracture over the right middle of the head noted in the Report – “The floor of the skull showed the presence of a multi-fragmented fracture over the right middle cranial fossa.”
The defendant
5. 	The defendant is from the village of Salepoua’e, Saleimoa, single and unemployed. The SoF by the prosecution says he is 42 years old; the information sheet says he is 24 years old and the PSR has him to be 31 years old.  According to the PSR he is the youngest of four children; he finished school at Year 11; he was on the seasonal work scheme where he worked in New Zealand for seven months in 2023 and was to go back in April 2024 when this incident happened.  
6. 	A family testimony by the defendant’s cousin whom the defendant lives with at Vaitele-uta as a condition of his bail says of the defendant to be hardworking and a caring individual. Written testimonials from his EFKS Faifeau and village Pulenuu both attest to the defendant’s good standing within the church and village. The highest-ranking orator (talking chief) of the village of Saleimoa, Luatua Semi Epati also gave a written testimonial vouching for both the deceased and the defendant as they were both members of his family, both with shared similar qualities who did things together and were best friends. Luatua says that what happened is heart-wrenching and unbelievable as the defendant is known for his quiet demeanour and not the type of person to react in such a confrontational way that would cause the death of a person whom he is very close to.
7. 	The defendant is a first offender.
Victim impact report (“VIR”)
8. 	The defendant and deceased are from the same village of Salepoua’e, Saleimoa and are also neighbours.
9. 	According, to the VIR, the deceased’s siblings are devastated by the sudden loss of their baby brother. In grieving, it will take time for them to heal from the loss. What is more devastating is that the defendant and the deceased are cousins. The deceased sister described them as “two peas in a pod who always stuck together and had each other’s backs”. They were like brothers as they do most things together such as “look after our family home and cleaning up our family land”.
10. 	The deceased sister said that the defendant through messenger reached out to them (siblings) individually as soon as it happened and apologised. They (siblings) accepted the apology and they have extended their forgiveness to the defendant’s family. Both families came together for the funeral as they are one family and are very close. The deceased siblings through their older sister gives support for the defendant and seeks for a second chance for the defendant.
11. 	The deceased was fifty-four (54) years old, single and unemployed.
Aggravating factors
12. 	I accept the following as the aggravating factors of the offending:
•	Use of extreme violence by continuing to punch the deceased on the face while he was on the ground; and
•	Attack on the head area through punches delivered to the face. 
Mitigating factors
13. 	The mitigating factors personal to the accused is his early guilty plea and previous good character. 
14. 	The defendant personally apologised to the deceased’s siblings as soon as the deceased passed away and was accepted by all the siblings. The defendant and his family were all involved together with the deceased family with the funeral.
15. 	There was provocation involved where it was the deceased who punched the defendant first resulting in the physical altercation. 
16. 	When the defendant found the deceased and realised, he was gravely injured took him to the hospital where he was shortly after pronounced dead. I accept that the defendant did not know or realise when he left the deceased that the deceased had sustained severe injuries to his head.
Discussion
17. 	Where an offending cost someone’s life, the starting point is a custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting a non-custodial sentence. The Court must hold the accused accountable for his actions. 
18. 	The circumstances of this offending which resulted in death is very unfortunate. There was a physical fight between the defendant and the deceased. The photos of the scene of the crime showed concrete steps surrounded by a concrete area. Also shown on the photos is a small pool of blood at the left corner of the lowest step (first step) and the concrete area. This is presumably where the deceased head lay when both him and the defendant fell from the veranda. This would explain the fracture over the right side of the deceased’s head.
19. 	The Prosecution referred to a number of cases with similar circumstances in particular Police v Failauga and recommended a starting point of between 6 – 8 years. I disagree for the following reasons:
•	Failauga was a result of a full hearing by assessor trial where he was found guilty. The present matter was an early guilty plea.
•	The circumstances of Failauga case are different from the present case. In Failauga the defendant did not like being told off by the deceased who was his uncle resulting in him assaulting his uncle which caused his death. The deceased was also much older than the defendant. No two cases are the same.
•	There is provocation in the present matter which resulted in a physical fight leading to death.
•	The similarities are there was no weapon used in both assaults, the familial connection between the defendants and the deceases and involvement of alcohol.
20. 	Counsel for the defendant agrees with Prosecution but suggest an end sentence of between 2-4 years. The end sentence is a matter for the judge not counsel. Counsel is to recommend a starting point taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors for the judge to consider in reaching an end sentence. 
21. 	Although being under the influence is not a defence, we can exclude that alcohol played a part in the offending that may not have happened if they were sober. I have no doubt that the defendant truly regrets what happened and will live with it for the rest of his life knowing he was responsible for the death of a relative who is also his best friend. I also take into consideration that death was exacerbated when they both fell with the deceased hitting his head on the concrete steps they fell on.
22. 	The penalty for manslaughter is maximum life imprisonment.  In comparison, the starting points in cases of attempted murder where machete or a weapon is used ranged from 9-15 years. Each offender is sentenced according to the circumstances of each case. 
23. 	I find that the defendant’s level of culpability in this offending is low to medium. In the circumstances of this offending, a starting point of 4 years is appropriate. The most significant mitigating factors are the defendant’s early guilty plea and prior good character. I give 12 months’ discount for the defendant’s prior good character. I will also allow further 12 months for the personal apologies by the defendant to each of the siblings, the defendant’s remorse and him and his family all contributing and assisted to the deceased’s funeral. I will also allow 3 months for provocation. This leaves 21 months. I further reduce the sentence by 5 months (25%) for early guilty plea. This reduces the sentence considerably to 16 months or 1 year + 4 months.
24. 	The defendant, Semi Taateo is convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment less any time in custody.
25. 	The defendant will be eligible for parole after serving half of his imprisonment term
JUSTICE TUATAGALOA