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

Police v SS [2025] WSSC 77 (2 September 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v SS [2025] WSSC 77 (2 September 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

SS

Accused

Counsel: T Toailoa for the Informant
L Strickland for Accused

Date: 2 September 2025

S E N T E N C E OF TUATAGALOA J

Background

1. The accused is being sentenced after being found guilty of two counts of sexual connection involving two girls under the age of 12:^[1]
   • KK – touching her genitalia with his finger
   • AM – placing his mouth on her genitalia

Facts

2. The offences happened on separate nights while each girl was asleep in her own home. The homes are less than 100 meters apart. The victims’ grandmothers are sisters. The accused was living at AM’s house at the time, having been banished from his own village.

The Aggravating Factors

3. The Prosecution submits and the Court accepts:
   • Premeditation: Both offences occurred at night when the complainants were asleep. The fact that the defendant did this to more than one victim shows that it was not a one-off impulsive decision.
   • Age disparity: The victims were 8 and 9 years’ old at the time; the accused was 28 years.
   • Breach of trust: The accused was living within the victims’ family;
   • Vulnerability: The victims were asleep in what should have a safe environment;
   • Impact: KK resides at SVSG and suffers from anxiety.

Victim Impact

4. KK’s victim impact report (VIR) records ongoing anxiety and fear both during the incident and while giving evidence. Although no VIR was provided for AM, the nature of the offending suggests
   • both victims are likely to suffer psychological harm.

Remorse and Accountability

5. In the pre-sentence report (PSR) the accused continues to deny the offending. However, his family had apologized to KK’s family, with whom he was living at the time, but not to AM’s family. This selective apology, combined with his ongoing denial, reflects a lack of genuine remorse and accountability.

Mitigating factors

6. Defence Counsel acknowledges the aggravating features of the offending and submits no mitigation related to the offending. However, the following personal factors are noted:
   • The accused is a father of three (3) children;
   • He is currently serving a prison term a 4-year, 6-month for unrelated offences, with approximately 1 year and 9 months remaining.

Sentencing Remarks

7. Counsel for the accused refers to previous cases involving similar offending and circumstances and accepts that a custodial sentence is appropriate. A starting point of four (4) years is submitted as reasonable in light of those precedents.
8. The offending took place over two separate nights and involved two young victims. It happened in their own home, while they were asleep among family members—a place where they should have felt safe and protected.
9. In the Samoan context, this behavior is deeply serious. The words mataifale and moetolo reflect the gravity of the acts. Mataifale speaks to the role of protector within the family, while moetolo refers to a violation of trust and innocence. These acts show a complete disregard for family bonds and the duty to protect young girls. Such offending is not only criminal—it is a betrayal of cultural values rooted in respect, care, and protection within the family.

Guideline Authority

10. The case of Attorney General v Lua [2016] WSCA 1 provides the guideline for non-penetrative offences against young children under 12 years. The offending involved brief, non-penetrative touching and licking of the victims’ genitalia, which ceased when the victims awoke when they felt the contact. The gravity of this particular offending falls in Band Two (5-12 years). A starting point of five (5) years is proportionate to the gravity of the offending.

Discount and Final Sentence

11. A custodial sentence is necessary to denounce the offending and affirm that such conduct is unacceptable.
12. From the five-year starting point, I allow:
    • 6 months for the apology to KK’s family; and
    • 6 months for the accused’s personal circumstances.
13. The accused, SS is convicted and sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently. This sentence is to commence following completion of his current custodial term.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

^[1] Crimes Act 2016, s58(1) & (6)