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

Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 89 (7 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 89 (7 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

FIALELEI VAIFALE SEPETIO

Defendant

Counsel: F. Tiafau for Prosecution
A. Su’a for the Defendant

Sentence: 7 October 2025

S E N T E N C E

1. This matter was last called before me on 3 September 2025 for sentence,^[1] I adjourned the hearing to give the opportunity for an ifoga. Mr Su’a has provided supplementary submissions and learned counsel advises that a further ifoga has taken place.
2. Mr Su’a has also provided submissions as to a suitable rehabilitation program. Mr Su’a moreover submits that the defendant continues with counselling with his village priest.
3. The defendant’s mother deposed in her affidavit dated 3 October 2025 that she went to the deceased’s family at Fogapoa. She was greeted with warmth and understanding when she met with them. They asked of the purpose of the visit and it was explained to them that she was required to provide proof to the Court for the defendant that the family had conducted a personal reconciliation or apologise to their family especially his wife and children. The deceased’s parents were surprised of this as it was their understanding that it had already been performed. They assured the defendant’s mother that they had already forgiven the defendant and that this matter is already “bygone for them.”
4. It would appear the deceased’s wife has also moved forward with her life and she has another husband and is now living with him and their family.
5. The prosecution urge that a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence with a starting point of between 4 and 5 years. In my view the offending arose from the defendant’s relative immaturity and response to perceived slights to the family’s reputation, and this led to the victim being punched and falling off a chair leading to a chain of events and his untimely death. But it is a sad fact of life that a loss of life has once again occurred because of anger.
6. I accept the Police submission that a startling point of four years (48 months) is appropriate. From that I will deduct 30% for his guilty plea which was entered at the first opportunity.
7. A disputed summary of facts hearing was held to settle the facts upon which the defendant is being sentenced. Despite finding against the defendant on the issue of provocation, I am satisfied that he should be entitled to the early guilty plea discount. He showed at the outset his willingness to be accountable, and this shows to me genuine remorse on his part.
8. I also give a further 10% reduction for the ifoga that was carried out, and recognise the defendant’s mother’s attempts to engage with the victim’s wife and family. The defendant’s relative youth is also a mitigating factor and in recognition of his previous good character, he is given a further 25% discount. That is on the generous side, but good character in a young person is something that should be encouraged.
9. After these reductions, he faces a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment, less time served on remand. However, the defendant’s youth suggests to me that society should not give up on this young man. For that reason, I am going to approach his sentencing in the following way. I reduce his end sentence to 12 months, less time served on remand. On release, and consistent with the principles in s.5 of the Community Justice Act 2008, I impose a sentence of supervision for a period of 6 months, this will involve the requirement to complete an anger management course and any other rehabilitation program as directed by Probation Service. The first part of the sentence is punitive and meant to hold the defendant to account, and the second part is to provide for an opportunity for rehabilitation in the community.

CHIEF JUSTICE

^[1] Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 87.