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

Police v Lui [2025] WSSC 72 (17 September 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lui [2025] WSSC 72 (17 September 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

SEUMANU SILIVELIO LUI, male of Moamoa, Sataua & Fusi Safata

Defendant

Counsel: J. Leung-Wai for Prosecution
Mr. Fesili & Mr. Lesa for the Defendant

Date: 17^th September 2025

S E N T E N C E

1. Mr. Lui is a 37 year old man from Moamoa, Sataua and Fusi Safata. He is married and a father of three children. He is self-employed and operates a provincial farm; his wife operates a family business called “Sunrise Restaurant”.
2. Mr. Lui has plead guilty to the very serious charge of manslaughter. It is a crime under the Crimes Act 2013, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The offending

3. On 23 June 2025, at around 8:40 am the victim went to Sunrise Restaurant at Togafuafua holding a small red bottle of beer. At the time, the restaurant was preparing to open at noon. The victim engaged in an argument with one of the restaurant’s employees in front of the restaurant.
4. Mr. Lui’s wife (“Mrs. Lui”) heard the commotion and intervened. The victim, who appeared to be intoxicated, attempted to sell her shark fins, which she declined. The victim left the area.
5. Shortly after, Mrs. Lui contacted the police and returned to her office. At around 9 am, she heard a noise at the back of the restaurant and found the victim there, again attempting to sell shark fins. She refused his offer and chased him away.
6. At around 9:30 am, Mr. Lui arrived at the restaurant and was informed by Mrs. Lui about the earlier incidents. While they were talking in front of the restaurant, a taxi stopped across the road where an argument took place between the taxi driver and the victim.
7. The victim got out of the taxi, crossed the road and approached the restaurant attempting to remove ropes from barrows that were blocking the parking area. At about 9:34 am the defendant, Mr. Lui, confronted the victim telling the victim not to touch the barrows or enter as the restaurant was closed.
8. During their exchange, Mr. Lui pulled the victim towards him and punched him once in the face with his right fist. The punch caused the victim to fall backward onto his back rendering him unconscious.
9. At around 9:35 am, Mr. Lui carried him to the side of the restaurant where he and Mrs. Lui attempted to revive him.
10. At around 9:41 am, after the victim gained consciousness, Mr. and Mrs. Lui took the victim to the hospital, using their car; Mrs. Lui says the victim was swearing throughout the journey.
11. A medical report dated 23 June 2025 records that upon arrival at 10:15 am, the victim was alive but later died at 11:18 am. The report noted no signs of life upon examination, a laceration at the back of the victim’s head and bleeding from his nose. The victim’s death was caused by severe traumatic head injuries and fatal blunt force head trauma.

Police submission

12. The police submit that a custodial penalty is appropriate for this case with a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. The police submit:
    • (i) Mr. Lui’s response to the victim’s contact was disproportionate. The police submit the defendant resorted to violence by physically assaulting the victim with a punch and that this was not an appropriate response to the situation;
    • (ii) The assault specifically targeted the victim’s head, and area which is particularly vulnerable;
    • (iii) Mr. Lui ought to have appreciated that if he knocked the deceased out he could suffer injury as a result of his fall. Mr. Lui as a former experienced police officer, ought to have foreseen the likely outcome of the assault; and
    • (iv) The victim’s intoxication at the time made him vulnerable and that he was less capable of defending himself or avoiding harm.
13. The police submit that whilst the sentence imposed by the court should reflect the various matters that are set out in sections 5 and 6 of the Sentencing Act 2016, the most relevant of the principles, in this case, are (1) to hold the defendant accountable: and (2) to deter the defendant or other persons from committing the same or similar offence.
14. The police submit there are three mitigating factors:
    • (a) An early guilty plea;
    • (b) Following the assault, Mr. Lui took immediate action to assist the victim and tried to and did revive him, then took the victim to the Hospital. Police submit that this behaviour reflects a degree of concern and responsibility towards the deceased’s well-being at the time; and
    • (c) Prior good character and background of service.
15. So there is no misunderstanding, the gravity of Mr Lui’s offending is serious. The Court does not lose sight of the fact that someone has died.
16. The deceased victim was Kerupi Isaia Muaau. He was a 47-year-old man, father of four, from Tafatafa, Falealili, and Tufuiopa. He was a much-loved son and family member; it appears his mother was only advised of her son’s death after he had been buried to try to mitigate her response. He is greatly missed by his family. I have read the letters from his mother Manutagi Muaau Isaia, and his sister, Serafi Muaau. Both women have forgiven you, asking for the Court’s leniency.

Discussion

17. Standing back from what happened, I note that you have not offered any submission to try to reduce your blameworthiness as to why you appear to have lashed out. This is to your credit. What happened occurred following the victim’s failure to go away as he had been asked numerous times. Some might objectively regard the victim’s defiant behaviour as provocative and disrespectful. The behaviour seems to have frustrated you so much so that you lashed out. But, as is consistent with the charge against you, you did not intend for the victim to die. Your lashing out started a chain of events that led to the victim’s untimely death. I am sure that you now wish you could have shown more restraint. Perhaps, given your testimonials you would normally have had good self-control, but on this day, the lessons you learned from all the years of service and discipline, whether in the Police or in your employment, or Church, all those lessons abandoned you.
18. Having said that, I consider this as a one-off incident. You know you have made a grave mistake.
19. I come to this view on the facts of the matter:
    • (i) I am satisfied that you came to your senses very quickly after hitting the victim and that you and your wife did all you could reasonably do to help the victim and his suffering at that time. He was able to regain consciousness, but unfortunately the damage caused when his head hit the concrete was irreversible. In other words, you have immediately owned up to the assault and tried to help the victim.
    • (ii) The ifoga you have performed well meets the requirements of section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2016. The letters from the victim’s mother and sister confirm the substantial ifoga, and from this they have some level of closure. They are people of remarkable humanity to forgive you for what has happened, and to ask the Court to forgive you. I am sure the request to the Court would not have been made had they thought you were not genuinely remorseful for your actions. The Sentencing Act requires me to have regard to the victim’s views.
20. I have also read with interest and admiration the testimonials that have been provided to the Court in support of you as a person and speaks of your good record. Your previous good reputation and works come to your aid at times like this.

Sentence

21. In the circumstances, I consider that section 5 of the Community Justice Act 2018 should be applied. I consider that in terms of holding you to account for your actions, that it is desirable to keep you in the community, and doing so is consistent with the safety of the community. I therefore sentence you to a term of probation of 18 months and you are to carry out community work hours of 100 hours. You are also to undertake an anger management course and any other course as directed by Probation Service.
22. I thank counsel for their very helpful submissions.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE