IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Maeli & Anor [2025] WSSC 110 (9 December 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Maeli & Anor	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 110	
		
Decision date: 	09 December 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) and TAFEAGA MAELI male of Vaitele-fou and ASOFAALELEITUA MALAKI male of Nuu-fou (defendants)	
		
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:	Accordingly, the Court sentences:
•	Tafeaga Maeli to three years and four months’ imprisonment, less any time in custody;
•	Asofaaleleitua Malaki to three years and four months’ imprisonment, less any time in custody.

Representation: 	J Leung Wai for Prosecution
T Toailoa for the Defendants 

Catchwords: 	Manslaughter, severe head injuries, penalty life imprisonment, victim impact report, pleaded guilty, traditional apology, genuinely remorseful, provocation 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss92, 102, 108	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

AND:

TAFEAGA MAELI male of Vaitele-fou and ASOFAALELEITUA MALAKI male of Nuu-fou.

Defendants

Counsel:	J Leung Wai for Prosecution
T Toailoa for the Defendants 

Sentence:	9 December 2025

SENTENCING OF TUATAGALOA J
The charges
1. 	Tafeaga and Asofaaleleitua (Asofa) appear for sentencing, jointly charged with manslaughter. The offence carries a maximum penalty life imprisonment.
The offending
2. 	According to the summary of facts, the deceased went to Asofa’s house at around 10pm on 13 June 2024. He called out to Asofa from the main road. Asofa’s father, Malaki, went outside and observed that the deceased was heavily intoxicated and holding a beer bottle. Malaki told and told him to go home. Shortly thereafter, both defendants returned home from the shop. Malaki instructed Asofa not to engage with the deceased who was intoxicated. However, the defendants disregarded this advice and approached the deceased. The deceased then attempted to strike Asofa with the beer bottle, but Malaki intervened and removed the beer bottle. At that moment, Asofa punched the deceased, causing him to fall to the ground. While Malaki was restraining Asofa, Tafeaga punched and kicked the deceased in the head. Asofa’s mother attempted to restrain both defendants, but they evaded her and continued assaulting the deceased while he lay on the ground.  The deceased was taken to hospital that same night, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
3. 	The prosecution’s summary of facts differs substantially from the defendants’ account in their Pre‑Sentence Report (PSR). The defendants claim that the deceased attempted to strike Malaki (father) with the beer bottle and directed insulting words at him. This disputed aspect is significant in relation to the mitigating factors of provocation and defence of another.
The Victim
4. 	A medical report dated 24 June 2024 states the cause of death was:
(a) 	Severe intra-cranial hemorrhage resulting from traumatic head injuries;
(b) 	The external cause being severe blunt force trauma to the head.
5. 	In simple terms, the victim died from severe head injuries. This is consistent with the actions described by the defendant in the PSR and in the summary of facts presented by the prosecution.
6. 	The Victim Impact Report (VIR) records the deceased’s mother speaking of the profound pain she feels at the loss of her son. She explained that she has not returned to Savai’i, where her son is buried, as it is too painful for her. Despite her grief, she acknowledged and accepted the ifoga performed by the defendants’ families.
The defendants
7. 	The defendants are cousins.
Tafeaga Maeli
8. 	According to the PSR, Tafeaga is a 21-year-old male from Vaitele-fou. He is the second eldest of five children. He completed Year 11 and, at the time of the offending, was employed as a deliveryman for Ah Liki Wholesale.
9. 	Written testimonials from his religious leader and village mayor attest to his good character, noting his involvement in church activities and community initiatives. His father described him as family-oriented, his “right hand” within the household, and highlighted his talent as a songwriter and singer.
10. 	Tafeaga is a first offender of prior good character. He pleaded guilty after the prosecution amended the charge to manslaughter. Probation Services confirmed that an ‘ifoga’ was carried out by his family.
Asofa Malaki
11. 	Asofa, according to the PSR, is a 22-year-old male from a family of three sisters and one brother. He is an electrician by trade and, at the time of the offending, was employed at the Faith Hotel in Motootua.
12. 	Written testimonials from his religious leader and village mayor attest to his commitment to church activities and village initiatives. His father and family rely on him since his father became ill.
13. 	Asofa is a first offender who also pleaded guilty when the charge was amended to manslaughter. Probation Services confirmed that an ifoga was carried out by his family, which the deceased’s mother also acknowledged in the VIR.
Prosecution submissions
14. 	Prosecution submitted the following aggravating factors of the offending:
(i) 	The nature and manner of the joint assault - both assaulted the deceased through kicks and punches;
(ii) 	Direct assault to the head area;
(iii) 	Deceased was in a vulnerable position, lying on the ground;
(iv) 	The ultimate consequence being the loss of human life.
15. 	The prosecution acknowledged that there is no fixed sentencing tariff for the offence of manslaughter, as circumstances vary widely. They referred to Police v Vitale [2017] WSSSC 71 and Police v Tupuola [2017] WSSC 60, which involved similar circumstances, and recommended a starting point of eight (8) years’ imprisonment as appropriate.
Defense in mitigation
16. 	Counsels for both defendants submitted the mitigating factors:
•	The defendants have no previous convictions;
•	Both entered guilty pleas;
•	The traditional apology (ifoga) was performed to the deceased’s family;
•	The defendants are genuinely remorseful – their actions were said to be out of character and have caused significant personal loss to his families;  
•	The defendants’ young ages, being 21 and 22 at the time of offending.
•	The offending was provoked.
17. 	Ms Toailoa, appearing for Asofa, did not agree with the prosecution’s recommended starting point of eight (8) years’ imprisonment. She submitted that, given the circumstances of the offending and the presence of provocation and defence of another, the appropriate starting point should be six (6) years. Ms Toailoa distinguished the cases of Police v Vitale [2017] WSSSC 71 and Police v Tupuola [2017] WSSC 60, noting that those decisions did not involve evidence of self-defence or defence of another.
Counsel referred to two Court of Appeal decisions — Fuifui v Police [2024] WSCA 3 (29 August 2024) and Attorney General v Lesa [2019] WSCA 10 — where the Court observed that neither self-defence of oneself nor of another could excuse further punches after the deceased had fallen to the ground. However, the Court also acknowledged that “some latitude can be allowed for acts done in the heat of the moment to meet the threat which the deceased appeared to pose.” The Court held that, strictly speaking, defence of another may be considered one of the circumstances of the offending.
18. 	Ms Ponifasio, appearing for Tafeaga, on the other hand, accepted the prosecution’s recommended starting point of eight (8) years. Her submissions focused instead on the extent to which the Court should reduce the sentence from that starting point, taking into account the mitigating factors.
Discussions
19. 	There is no doubt that the defendants were provoked when the deceased attempted to strike Asofa’s father with a beer bottle. The initial punch by Asofa may be viewed as an act in defence of his father. However, that justification ceased once the defendants continued their assault upon the deceased. There was no basis for self‑defence, as the threat was directed at the father and not at either of the defendants.
20. 	While provocation was present, the retaliation by the defendants was wholly disproportionate. The deceased was repeatedly punched and kicked while lying on the ground. The assaults were directed at the head — a particularly vulnerable part of the body where injury carries a high risk of fatality. In this case, the blows did in fact result in death.
21. 	The Court accepts that the defendants genuinely regret their conduct and are burdened by the thought of “if only.” Nevertheless, what is done cannot be undone. They must live with the knowledge that their actions caused the death of another person.
22. 	Each case must be assessed on its own facts. However, the loss of human life is always a matter of the utmost seriousness and can never be overlooked. The Court must treat such loss with gravity, while also considering the surrounding circumstances of the offending. In the present case, a custodial sentence is both necessary and appropriate.
Starting point
23. 	In determining sentence, the Court must balance the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending. The aggravating features are clear: the deceased was assaulted jointly by both defendants, the assault was directed to the head while the deceased was on the ground in a vulnerable position, and the consequence was the loss of human life.
24. 	In mitigation, the Court accepts that both defendants are young first offenders of prior good character, who entered early guilty pleas. The Court also acknowledges the traditional apology (ifoga) performed by their families, the genuine remorse expressed, and the support of their communities.
25. 	The Court further accepts that there was provocation when the deceased attempted to strike Asofa’s father with a beer bottle. The initial punch by Asofa may be seen as an act in defence of his father. However, the subsequent and continued assault, particularly the repeated kicks and punches to the head while the deceased lay on the ground, went far beyond what could be justified.
26. 	The prosecution recommended a starting point of eight (8) years’ imprisonment, while counsel for Asofa submitted that six (6) years was more appropriate given the circumstances. Having considered the authorities cited, and the presence of provocation and defence of another, the Court sets the starting point at seven (7) years’ imprisonment.
27. 	From this starting point, the Court applies discounts for the mitigating factors:
•	Youth and prior good character: 18months
•	Remorse and ifoga: 9 months
•	Provocation: 3months
This leaves 54 months to which I give 25% reduction (14months) for the early guilty pleas. The end sentence is 40 months or 3 years and 4 months.
Sentence imposed
28. 	Accordingly, the Court sentences:
•	Tafeaga Maeli to three years and four months’ imprisonment, less any time in custody;
•	Asofaaleleitua Malaki to three years and four months’ imprisonment, less any time in custody.

JUSTICE LEUTELE M TUATAGALOA