Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Lanouta [2025] WSSC 33 (9 May 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lanouta [2025] WSSC 33 (9 May 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

ANESONE LANOUTA aka LANOTAI LANOUTA male of Satitoa.

Defendant

Counsel: L Taimalelagi for Prosecution
D. Roma for the Accused

Submissions: 4^th and 23^rd April 2025
Sentence: 9^th May 2025

R E S E R V E D S E N TE N C E

Charge:

1. Anesone, you appear for sentence on one charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm with intent carrying a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years imprisonment.

The Offending:

2. According to the Summary of Facts accepted by you through your lawyer, you had been alerted to an incident involving your sister that angered you. In the early hours of Sunday 11^th April 2021, your sister had been asleep at your family home when the victim went to her and punched her on the mouth. When he went to punch her a second time, she screamed alerting you to the incident.
3. The victim went to his grandmother’s home nearby. Shortly afterwards, your brothers and you found him there trying to go inside. As the victim went inside, you grabbed him by the shirt and pulled him back outside. You then punched him in the face causing him to fall on to the concrete ground. Your brothers then joined the assault with you punching the victim and then picking him up and throwing him to one side. When the deceased landed on the ground, two others of your relatives joined in beating the victim, punching him in the face and kicking him. Relatives then intervened bringing the beating to an end but by this point, the victim was unconscious on the ground.
4. Photographs of the victim following the assault show the deceased badly beaten. In his report, Dr Fuimaono reported that x-rays showed the deceased suffered a broken jaw, laceration to his face and marked swelling of the brain (edema) with high pressure on the brain spurting out fluid which he said “is not a good sign, a sign of severe brain injury.”

The Accused:

5. You are a 28 year old male of Satitoa Aleipata. According to your Pre-Sentence Report, you were raised in Satitoa Aleipata under the care of your biological parents. You are the eldest of 5 children and completed school and went on to study at the National University of Samoa, Faculty of Marine Studies. You have worked with the Samoa Ports Authority. You have positive character references.

The Victim:

6. The victim is 32 year old Peter Feiloaiga of Satitoa. He was in a de-facto relationship with his partner who was 7 months pregnant with their first child. In her Victim Impact Report provided in March 2023 for one of your co-defendants, the victim’s mother says that she suffers no mental or physical ailments as a result of her son’s death. She speaks of her strong faith in God who is the judge of all people, good and bad.

The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:

7. In R v Taueki [2005] NZLR 372, the New Zealand Court of Appeal identified factors contributing to the seriousness of grievous bodily harm offending. The aggravating factors of your offending are that:
   • (i) the violence was extreme;
   • (ii) the injuries suffered by the victim were very serious, and potentially fatal;
   • (iii) the attack targeted the head. As the New Zealand Court of Appeal stated in Taueki, “where a victim is subjected to a severe beating or kicking causing head injuries, the offender’s conduct will be treated similarly to offending involving the use of a weapon;
   • (iv) the assault was a group attack involving multiple attackers;
   • (v) the victim was vulnerable and grossly outnumbered;
   • (vi) the domestic relationship between you and the victim; and
   • (vii) you initiated the violence against the victim.
8. In terms of mitigating features to your offending, your counsel says mitigating your offending is provocation. Prosecution accepts a degree of provocation and refers me to the sentencing of your co-defendant Toatasi Uili by Tuala-Warren J where Her Honour took into account that the victim “had attempted to try and rape the accused’s cousin...” (paragraph 16). This factor was accepted as highly provocative and Toatasi Uili sentenced to 9 months imprisonment from a 5 year start point.
9. In your case, the accusation that the victim tried to rape your sister is not present either in the Summary of Facts or in your PSR. The victim had approached your sister in her bed and punched her. He then went to punch her again but she screamed and the victim fled. In your PSR, you make no allegation of attempted rape but said only that Selesa had a bloodied face and injured lip and that she identified “Pika” as the assailant. The allegation of “attempted rape” is not a fact relevant to your state of mind at the time of your assault of the victim.
10. In Faleao v Police [2024] WSCA 3, the Court of Appeal adopted the New Zealand approach to provocation in terms of sentencing^[1] and stated:
    • “The Court of Appeal has found that “the evaluation in provocation sentencing is fact dependent” and suggested relevant factors may include:
    • ...the nature, duration and gravity of the alleged provocative conduct; the timing of any response by the offender; whether the response was proportionate to the nature, duration and gravity of the provocation; whether the provocation was (or remained) an operative cause of the offender’s response; and whether the provocative conduct was such as to reduce the offender’s culpability in all the circumstances.”
11. While I am sceptical that your response was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the victim’s provocative acts as you knew them to be, I will allow a deduction for provocation given submission by both counsel. However, it is not at the ‘high’ level as characterized by Tuala-Warren J in Toatasi Uili’s case.
12. In terms of mitigating features personal to you, I accept:
    • (i) that you are remorseful for your actions;
    • (ii) the reconciliation that has occurred and your performance of the ifoga;
    • (iii) your period of banishment and the payment of money and other items to the deceased’s family;
    • (iv) your prior good character; and
    • (v) your guilty plea.
13. There is no deduction for your personal circumstances. Your wife and daughter are overseas and while you support her parents, I am not satisfied on the material before me that those circumstances warrant a deduction.

Discussion:

14. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. The inclusion of the photographs of the victim as part of the Summary of Facts is very helpful. One only needs to look at the photographs to see the extreme nature of the violence that you and your other family members inflicted on the victim. It can only be described as appalling and cowardly. The victim’s last conscious moments at your hands could only have been terrifying, the victim powerless to defend himself from you all.
15. Prosecution seeks a start point of between 2 ½ - 3 years’ imprisonment. Your counsel seeks consideration of a non-custodial sentence. At the outset, there is absolutely no proper basis in which a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. You initiated the violence; the violence was extreme and continuing; and it involved a cowardly group attack on the victim causing him serious injuries. After punching and then attacking the deceased on the ground when he fell, you and your brother picked him up and threw him before again punching and kicking him on the ground with others. The question for me is the appropriate start point for sentence.
16. The maximum penalty for this offending is up to 10 years’ imprisonment. In Police v Tasilimu [2024] WSSC 117 (23 September 2024) involving a knife and less serious injuries, a 5 year start point was adopted. In Police v Lauloto [2024] WSSC 50 (18 June 2024) involving a group attack on the victim of far less gravity, a three year start point was adopted for a defendant with prior convictions. In Police v Sefo [2023] WSSC 45 involving a husband’s beating of his wife less serious than this case, an 8 year sentence start point was adopted.
17. Having considered the Taueki bands, your case in my view falls within band 3. While a higher start point of 5 years or more may be warranted, I will adopt a 4 year start point bearing in mind submissions by prosecution and the start point adopted in Toatasi Uili’s case. From that start point, I deduct 6 months for the provocation reducing the start point to 3 years 6 months. I further deduct 3 months for remorse; 6 months for the ifoga and reconciliation; 3 months for your prior good character; and 6 months for your banishment and the payment of money and other items to the deceased’s family. From the balance, 5 months for your guilty plea leaving an end sentence of 19 months’ imprisonment.
18. In reaching this result, I note that in Toatasi Uili’s sentence, the end result of 9 months’ imprisonment was inconsistent with the deductions extended by the court. From a 5 year (60 month) start point, the deductions result in 22 months’ imprisonment before accounting for the guilty plea. Although 25% is the usual deduction, a 1/3 deduction was extended from the 22 months. From the 22 months reduced by 7 months, a 15 months’ imprisonment term is reached. The 9 months end sentence imposed appears to be an error. That error was favourable to Toatasi Uili by some 6 months.

Result:

19. On the charge of assault grievous bodily harm, you are convicted and sentenced to 19 months’ imprisonment less remand in custody.
    

JUSTICE CLARKE

^[1] Hamidzadeh v R [2012] NZCA 550; [2013] 1 NZLR 369 at [62].