IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Puea [2024] WSSC 144 (27 August 2024)

Case name: 	Police v Puea	
		
Citation: 	[2024] WSSC 144	
		
Decision date: 	27 August 2024	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v FILI MOANANU PUEA (Defendant) 	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Perese	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The defendant is convicted of the offence of negligent driving causing death. I am satisfied that the defendant did stop, but on apprehending danger to himself and those in the vehicle he was driving returned to the vehicle and went straight to the police. 

In relation to the negligent driving causing death, the defendant is sentenced to a period of 12 months’ supervision and 100 hours of community work. He is fined the sum of ST$2,000 payable to the deceased’s wife, Temukisa Filipo, within 3 months, in default of which 4 months’ imprisonment. The defendant’s passport is to be surrendered to the Registrar of the Court and released on satisfaction of his sentence.  I thank counsel for their very helpful submissions.	
		
Representation: 	H. Apisaloma & F. Lawrence for Prosecution 
I. Sapolu for the Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	Negligent driving causing death – ifoga carried out – monetary contribution & fine mates to victim’s family – village penalty imposed – restorative justice.	
		
Words and phrases:	“drunk victim lying on road” 	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

FILI MOANANU PUEA

Defendant

Counsel:	H. Apisaloma & F. Lawrence for Prosecution 
		I. Sapolu for the Defendant

Date:		27 August 2024

S E N T E N C E 
1. 	Fili Moananu Puea, you are here because you pled guilty to the charge of negligent driving causing death and facing to ascertain. This case is tragic. As a result of an accident a man lost his life.  
2. 	The amended summary of facts dated 26 August 2024 provides that you are a 31 year old male from Lotofaga, Safata and married with four children and you are unemployed.  The deceased is a 22 year old man from Saanapu. He was married with two children.
3. 	On 19 March 2023 at around 1.00pm at Lotofaga, the defendant and his three companions entered a vehicle, namely a Toyota, and drove to a store at Mulivai, Safata. Upon arriving at the said store, the defendant’s three companions bought beer. Only these three companions consumed alcohol on the way to Motootua Hospital as the defendant wanted to see his son who was hospitalised.  By the time they arrived at the hospital only the defendant entered the hospital while his companions waited outside in the vehicle.  At around 3.00pm, the defendant and his three companions left the hospital and continued driving around town until they decided to head back to Lotofaga, Safata at night. 
4. 	At around 9.00pm at Saanapu, the deceased and his brother-in-law left their uncle’s house after a drinking session and were walking on the south-east road. The deceased then lay down on the road, on the left lane of the road of which cars travel from east to west towards Lefaga with his head placed just over the lane of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction.
5. 	The brother-in-law tried carrying him off the road but could not move him. At around 10.30pm the brother-in-law decided to get help from a nearby house and left the deceased sleeping on the road. At the time the defendant was driving the vehicle travelling from west to east towards Safata. The defendant drove over the deceased’s head with the front right tyre of the vehicle. The defendant momentarily stopped then continued driving his vehicle to the Lotofaga Safata Police Station where he spoke to the police.  The deceased on the other hand was taken to hospital.
6. 	The report of the medical doctor provided to the Coroner records the deceased was dead on arrival.  The same report attributed the cause of death as multiple trauma to head and neck leading to severe traumatic brain injury. 
7. 	At mentions on 22 May 2023, the defendant through counsel pleaded not guilty to the charges. However, at the hearing of 06 May 2024 the defendant through counsel vacated his not guilty pleas and entered guilty pleas to the two charges.  The defendant has no previous convictions. 
8. 	I have carefully considered the Prosecution submissions and those advanced-on behalf of the defendant; the pre-sentence report and the testimonials provided; and have had regard to the victim’s views contained in the impact statements – one provided by the deceased’s mother, the other by his wife. There has been an ifoga on the victim’s extended family involving ST$10,000 and at least seven fine mats. The village fined the defendant a further ST$10,000 and 100 cartons of tinned fish.
9. 	I note the deceased’s wife’s disappointment that the defendant has not spoken to her directly to apologise to her for killing her husband, and the father of their children. This aspect is a concern with respect to the nature of the ifoga which is generally carried out between families.  An ifoga is intended to secure peace between the families and bring about closure for the victims and forgiveness for the defendant and his family; but it does have its limitations when it comes to considering restorative justice to the immediate family members such as the victim’s surviving spouse, or partner and children.  I encourage the defendant and his family after this sentencing decision is given to try to bring some relief to the deceased’s immediate family with an appropriate apology.
10. 	The Prosecution submits in an amended sentencing memorandum that the criminality of the offending in this case is at the lower end of the negligence scale, I agree with that categorisation.  Ms. Sapolu submits the offending does not involve excessive speed or impaired driving from the use of drugs or alcohol.  The deceased appears to have been lying on the road and the defendant’s car ran over him causing fatal injuries.  
11. 	The defendant told Probation that he did stop after the incident but that fearing for his life he drove straight to the police station.  
12. 	Prosecution takes the position that a non-custodial penalty is appropriate in this case. Prosecution submits the defendant should pay a fine in the sum of ST$2,000 with payment to be made within 3 months in default in which he be sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment; and secondly, the defendant’s passport be surrendered to the Registrar and released upon the completion of his sentence. Ms. Sapolu agrees with this sentencing approach.
13. 	Whilst I can appreciate the low level of criminality, nevertheless, a life has been lost. I agree that the circumstances of this case warrant a non-custodial punishment; but I consider that an appropriate sentence which satisfies the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act is that the defendant is sentenced to a period of supervision and to complete community work.
Sentence
14. 	The defendant is convicted of the offence of negligent driving causing death. I am satisfied that the defendant did stop, but on apprehending danger to himself and those in the vehicle he was driving returned to the vehicle and went straight to the police. 
15. 	In relation to the negligent driving causing death, the defendant is sentenced to a period of 12 months’ supervision and 100 hours of community work. He is fined the sum of ST$2,000 payable to the deceased’s wife, Temukisa Filipo, within 3 months, in default of which 4 months’ imprisonment. The defendant’s passport is to be surrendered to the Registrar of the Court and released on satisfaction of his sentence.  I thank counsel for their very helpful submissions. 
CHIEF JUSTICE