IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Amaile [2025] WSSC 36 (6 March 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Amaile	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 36	
		
Decision date: 	6 March 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) and TUVAO AMAILE, male of Laulii, (Accused) 	
		
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 accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ supervision for the offence of causing injury and 6 months’ supervision for the use of a weapon to be served concurrently with the following conditions for: 
(i)	To attend anger management conducted by the Fesoasoani Trust; 
(ii)	To serve 60 hours’ community service as directed by the Pulenuu of his village of Laulii; and
(iii)	The defendant not to re-offend.	
		
Representation: 	T. Fesili for Prosecution
Accused in Person	
		
Catchwords: 	Causing grievous bodily injury – armed with a dangerous weapon – early guilty plea – first offender – supervision sentence.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s. 118(1).
Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s. 25.	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

TUVAO AMAILE, male of Laulii

Accused

Counsel:	T. Fesili for Prosecution
Accused in Person

Sentence:	6 March 2025

sentencing of Tuatagaloa J
1. 	The accused appears for sentence on the charges of causing grievous bodily injury which charge carries maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and the charge of armed with a hand saw, a dangerous weapon which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment. 
2. 	The victim is 35 years old from Magiagi and is known to the accused.  The summary of facts prepared by the Prosecution was read out and confirmed by the accused which basically says the following:
•	The accused and his wife run a stall at the Savalalo Market. In the early hours of 2nd December 2024, the accused and his wife who were sleeping at their stall were woken up by the victim that an unidentified person broke into their stall and took over with their money.
•	The accused ran outside if he could see this person but did not see anyone. The accused returned back to the stall and asked the victim to make sure that the victim did not know who this person was to which the victim responded that he did not know who the person was.
•	The accused got angry with the victim as he did not believe the victim for, he suspected that the victim knew who the person was and got hold of a hand saw and struck at the victim on his left arm causing a deep laceration. The victim ran away and called out for help.
3. 	The pre-sentence report (PSR) prepared by Probation who interviewed the accused provides the Court with a bit more background or detailed information that is not provided in the summary of facts. 
4. 	From the PSR the accused in relation to paragraph 6 of the summary of facts says that he ran towards the Tuia Atua Tamasese Efi building where he came across some youths that usually come to his stall and body searched them and their bags and found nothing. He then made his way to the seawall and also came across some other youths and asked them to which one of the youths told him that it was the victim and another man named Iosua that stole from his stall. The accused went back to his stall and found the victim sitting in the front and did what he did after he had asked the victim. The accused said that he apologized to the victim when he met him in town sometime after what happened. 
5. 	The aggravating factors of the offending is the use of a weapon; a hand saw which caused a laceration to the victim’s left arm. It is seen by the Court as an unprovoked attack. There is no victim impact report or medical report provided by the prosecution as to the seriousness of the injury sustained.  The more appropriate charge given what is available before the Court is one of actual bodily harm which attracts a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
6. 	The mitigating factors are the early guilty plea, the first offending status of the accused and the apology by the accused to the victim. The prosecution given the circumstances of the offending and the mitigating factors recommends a non-custodial sentence. I agree.
7. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ supervision for the offence of causing injury and 6 months’ supervision for the use of a weapon to be served concurrently with the following conditions for: 
•	To attend anger management conducted by the Fesoasoani Trust; 
•	To serve 60 hours’ community service as directed by the Pulenuu of his village of Laulii; and
•	The defendant not to re-offend.
JUSTICE TUATAGALOA