IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Talaepa [2025] WSSC 18 (2 April 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Talaepa 	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 18	
		
Decision date: 	2 April 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v PATIVIA ENELIKO TALAEPA, female of Faleula (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Senior Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On the charge of grievous bodily you will be convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison. Any remand in custody time to be deducted. 

On the second charge of armed with a dangerous weapon convicted and sentence to 3 months in prison, concurrent term.	
		
Representation: 	H. Apisaloma for prosecution 
V. Afoa for the defendant 

Catchwords: 	Intent to cause grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon (electric kettle with boiling water) -  custodial term.	
		
Words and phrases:	“splashed boiling water onto victim” – “victim sustained burn injuries to face, part of neck, upper chest & back of right hand”.	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Police v Lafaele [2015] WSSC 114;
R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174.	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

PATIVIA ENELIKO TALAEPA female of Faleula

Defendant
				 
Counsel:		H. Apisaloma for prosecution 
			V. Afoa for the defendant 

Sentence:		02 April 2025

SENTENCE
1. 	The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to two charges. Firstly, that at Faleula on 22 September 2024 she did cause with intent grievous bodily harm to Vailala Paneta a male of Faleula. And secondly same place same date she was armed with a dangerous weapon namely an electric kettle containing boiling water not being so armed for a lawful purpose. 
2. 	The uncontested Police summary of facts says the defendant is a 24 year old female of Faleula single unemployed. The victim is a 19 year old male of Faleula also unemployed. The defendants mother and the victims mother are sisters which means they are first cousins. Prior to the night of the offending at around 7:00pm the victim was arguing with his younger sister over a phone. The argument escalated causing the defendant to intervene saying to the victim “aua e ke faia le keige i ou laku po ou maka”. The argument then switched to the defendant and the victim resulting in the victim pushing away the defendant before running out of the house. 
3. 	At around mid-night the victim returned to his house where his family was sleeping and went to sleep. At 7:00 am the following day while everyone was still asleep the defendant awoke still angry about the events of the previous night and began boiling hot water in their electric kettle. Once the water boiled she carried the hot water kettle towards the victims house and found them all asleep including the victim. The summary says she woke him up and when he awoke she splashed boiling water onto his face and walked away. Not surprisingly the victim screamed out in pain and was taken by his family to the National Hospital. 
4. 	Upon arrival at hospital the on duty doctor reported the matter to the Police and noted the following injuries to the victim: firstly burn injuries to the entire face and to the anterior neck and upper chest. Secondly burn injuries to the back of the right hand. The doctors report further notes the injuries were high risks of complication because they involved the head of the patient. The patient was referred to the Surgical Unit for management and treatment of his injuries. 
5. 	The Police have been unable to locate the victim for the purposes of the Victim Impact Report so it is unknown to the court the extent of the victims injuries. And what if any permanent results or consequences have arisen from the said injuries. But there is no question the defendants offending caused life threatening and serious injuries. The defendant targeted a vulnerable area of the body by pouring hot water on his head and face. 
6. 	The defendant has pleaded guilty to causing the victim grievous bodily harm which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years by law. The courts sentence must hold the defendant accountable for what she did and promote in her responsibility for her actions. It must also denounce her conduct as unacceptable and send a message to all that if you do this kind of thing likely you will end up in prison. 
7. 	It is also clear in this matter that the defendants conduct is quite calculated and pre-meditated. She woke up the next day still angry, proceeded to boil the kettle and then carried the boiled kettle to the victims house where she poured the hot water over the victim, not his arms or his legs but over his head and face. 
8. 	Imprisonment must be imposed to send the necessary message to the defendant about her conduct and to notify the general public about what happens if you engage in this kind of behaviour. I accept this is an issue of the “lotoifale” but forgiving each other and reconciliation does not spare the defendant from prison. But it will operate to reduce her term. 
9. 	As you have heard the maximum for grievous bodily harm is 10 years in prison. The Police are seeking a start point of 2 to 3 years in prison. In Police v Lafaele [2015] WSSC 114 the most applicable of the authorities cited by counsels, a case of pouring water over a female complainant in the context of a domestic dispute the starting point was 3 years. That case can be probably can be regarded as more serious, I will accept the lower end of the prosecutions submission for this matter and start sentence at 2 years in prison. 
10. 	As your counsel has pointed out there are deductions that needs to be made from that Pativia for mitigating factors. Firstly you are a first offender, you have a good background as canvassed in the pre-sentence report which is supported by good references. You will receive the usual 6 months deductions for those matters. 
11. 	It has been confirmed the matter is settled within your family the necessary apologies have been made and accepted. A further normal 6 months deduction will also be applied for the reconciliation. That means deductions of 12 months in prison, leaves one (1) year in prison balance. 
12. 	Your counsel has asked for a deduction for provocation. The problem with that is the facts show that you and the victim argued the night before this incident and there was plenty of time for you to cool off before the next morning. When you woke up the next day you could have gone to the victim and discussed what happened and settle amicably and peacefully or you could have discussed it with his mother. Instead the option you chose was to boil some water walk to the victims house and pour it over his head. 
13. 	In R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174 which is a well-known case the court made the important point that for provocation to justify a reduction in sentence the court must be satisfied firstly that the provocation was “serious”. Secondly that this was “the operative cause of the violence inflicted”. And thirdly that it remained an operative cause throughout the commission of the offence. I do not find that your behaviour falls within any of these categories. 
14. 	The argumentative behaviour of the victim the night before was not serious enough from what I have read to provoke what you did. If anything your retaliation was way out of proportion to the provocation offered. Neither does the court accept that this was the operative cause of your action the next day.  Or that it remained the operative cause of what you did. What you did was not a continuing reaction to the provocation but was to take revenge for the victims insulting behavoiur towards you the previous night. I cannot accept your counsels submission, there will be no deduction for provocation. 
15. 	But the final deduction you are entitled to is the usual one of one-quarter of the balance of sentence for your guilty plea which is 3 months from your one (1) year balance, leaves 9 months.
16. 	On the charge of grievous bodily you will be convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison. Any remand in custody time to be deducted. 
17. 	On the second charge of armed with a dangerous weapon convicted and sentence to 3 months in prison, concurrent term. 

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON