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

Police v JLS [2026] WSSC 7 (11 February 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v JLS [2026] WSSC 7 (11 February 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

JLS

Accused

Counsels: Mr. P. Paramore for Prosecution
Ms. M. Tuimalealiifano for the Accused

Sentence: 11 February 2026

SENTENCE

1. The Court makes permanent the orders of prohibiting publication of the name and villages of the victim in light of her age. The same order will apply to the accused as publication of his name and villages will lead to the identification of the victim.

The Charges

2. You appear for sentence today for the following charges:
   • (i) One count of rape pursuant to section 49 (1)(a)(2) & 52(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment upon conviction;
   • (ii) Three counts of sexual conduct with a young person under 16 years pursuant to section 59 (1)(5) and 50 (b) of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of not more than 10 years’ imprisonment upon conviction; and
   • (iii) Two counts of indecent act with a young person under 16 pursuant to section 59(3)(5) of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years upon conviction.

The Offending

3. The Amended Summary of Facts dated 19 December 2025 which you accept states that on or between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 at the victim’s residence you engaged in sex with the victim without her consent, thereby raping her. During this period, you also performed other sexual and indecent acts on the victim which included placing your penis in the victim’s mouth (oral sex), inserting your finger in the victim’s genitalia, licking the victim’s genitalia and sucking and caressing her breasts.
4. The matter only came to light when the victim’s father discovered you and the victim in the toilet with the door locked. The victim’s parents questioned the victim where she disclosed your conduct towards her.
5. The offending was subsequently reported to Police only after an uncle who had returned from seasonal work found out what had happened and advised the family to report the matter to Police

The Background of the Accused

6. You are a 19 year old male and live with your adopted parents. At the time of the offending you were 17 years old. You attended school at one of the colleges in Apia but left at year 12. You then found employment at a local restaurant as a kitchen hand where you worked until you were arrested for this matter.
7. According to the pre-sentence report dated 14 October 2025, you were adopted at birth and raised by your biological mother’s brother, his wife and their family.

The Victim

8. The victim in this matter is your biological sister, who was 13 years old at the time of the offending. In her victim impact statement, she described the physical and significant emotional harm caused by your actions, expressing both concern and disappointment. As a result of the offending, she was removed from her parents’ care and placed with the Samoa Victim Support Group (SVSG). During her time away from her family, she expressed a strong desire to return home to her parents and siblings.

Aggravating Features of the Offending

9. The following aggravating features are applicable to your offending:
   • (i) A breach of trust. The victim is your biological sister, though you were raised as her first cousin. This represents a serious breach of familial trust and authority. Your responsibility was to protect your younger family members, not exploit or abuse that relationship.
   • (ii) Vulnerability of the victim. She was only 13 at the time of the offending, you took advantage of her young age and took away her dignity and integrity as a young girl.
   • (iii) Premeditation. The offending was not an isolated incident. You committed these acts on multiple occasions, establishing a pattern of behavior that likely would have continued had you not been discovered.
   • (iv) Violence. The crime of rape inherently involves the application of force. In her victim impact statement, the victim reported suffering bruising around her upper thigh near her hip, consistent with the violent application of force against her will. This physical harm underscores the seriousness of the offending.

Mitigating Features in respect of the Offending

10. There are none.

Aggravating Features in respect of the Offender

11. There are no aggravating factors concerning you personally.

Mitigating Factors in respect of the Offender

12. The following mitigating factor apply to you personally:
    • (i) Your age. You are currently 19 years old and were 17 years old at the time of the offending. Your youth is a relevant consideration, as it reflects immaturity and limited life experience.
    • (ii) You have no prior convictions. The character reference provided by your mother describes you as a generally responsible young man, suggesting that this offending was out of character.
    • (iii) You entered a guilty plea at an early stage of proceedings. This demonstrates acceptance of responsibility and has spared the victim the ordeal of giving evidence in court.
    • (iv) I have read your apology letter which is addressed to the Court, the victim and her family and your family. In that letter, you acknowledged what you did was wrong and accept responsibility for your actions. The victim has also confirmed that your parents apologized to her and her family, and you later offered a personal apology to her and her parents. These apologies were accepted, demonstrating some effort toward reconciliation and recognition of the harm caused.

Sentencing principles

13. The aggravating and mitigating factors outlined above reflect the considerations set out in section 7 of the Sentencing Act 2016. In determining sentence, I also remind myself of, and take into account, the principles contained in sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. These provisions emphasize that sentencing must balance accountability, deterrence, denunciation of the offending, protection of the community, and the rehabilitation of the offender, while also ensuring that the victim’s interests are recognized.
14. The prosecution refers to the cases of Police v Solomona Salu Saipele^[1] and Police v Va’a Tapuai^[2] both involving rape, where the courts emphasized deterrence and punishment through terms of imprisonment, notwithstanding the young age of the offenders. In Police v Pauesi^[3], Vaai J made the following observation:
    • “In considering the sentence for sexual offences particularly rape the primary consideration is a term of imprisonment. There should be an element of deterrence to reflect the gravity of the offence to punish the offender, to deter the offender and to deter other like-minded people. The sentence is also to convey condemnation by society of such criminal conduct.”
15. I agree that for rape, a term of imprisonment is unavoidable. The seriousness of the offence, the aggravating features present, and the established case law all point to imprisonment as the only appropriate sentencing option. A custodial sentence is necessary to reflect the gravity of the offending, to punish the offender, to deter similar conduct, and to convey society’s condemnation of such criminal behaviour.
16. The Court of Appeal decision of Key v Police^[4] sets out the four categories or bands of offending for rape adopted from the NZ Court of Appeal’s decision in R v AM^[5] The bands are as follows:
    • (a) Band 1: 8 -10 years – Appropriate where the offending is at the lower end and where there is an absence of aggravating features, or their presence is very limited.
    • (b) Band 2: 9 – 15 years – Where violence and premeditation are moderate.
    • (c) Band 3: 14 -20 years – Aggravating features at a relatively serious level.
    • (d) Band 4: 19 – life imprisonment – As well as the aggravating features in Band 3 it is likely to consist of multiple offending over a considerable time. Repeat family offending would fall into this band.
17. In relation to the offence of sexual conduct with a young person under 16 (section 59(1)(5) Crimes Act 2013), Justice Tuatagaloa in Police v PA^[6] observed:
    • “There are no sentencing bands or guidelines for unlawful sexual connection under s. 59 in regards to victims under 16 years. This means that the Court is to impose the appropriate sentence according to the circumstances of each case.”
18. Justice Tuatagaloa further referred to the cases of Police v AG^[7] and Police v Iese Siaosi^[8] provided by the defence where the Court adopted starting points of 15 months and 18 months respectively. However, she adopted a higher starting point of five years to reflect the seriousness and culpability of the defendant, which she considered to be at the higher end of the scale.
19. With respect to indecent acts, sentencing outcomes vary considerably depending on the circumstances of each case and the level of culpability of the defendant. End sentences have ranged from terms of imprisonment of two to three years^[9] to discharges without conviction^[10], reflecting the broad discretion available to the Court in assessing the appropriate penalty.

Discussion

20. The prosecution has referred to sentencing decisions of this Court in comparable circumstances and recommends a starting point of six years’ imprisonment. The defence, by contrast, has suggested a starting point of between five and six years. Both recommendations fall within the lower end of Band 1 of the tariff established in Key v Police. This indicates that, while there is agreement on the appropriate sentencing band, the parties differ slightly on the precise starting point within that range.
21. It is important to reflect on the statement made by Tuatagaloa J in Police v SF regarding the offence of rape as it is applicable to the circumstances of this case:
    • “The reason behind the law is because of the need to protect young girls from people like the defendant. The safety of our young vulnerable girls from predatory behaviours of older males needs to be vigilantly protected. For a country that places a lot of emphasis on family, culture and religion, the increase in the number of sexual violations and abuse against young girls in villages and especially within families’ shows a breakdown in our society and on the innate shared understandings pertaining to our cultural values. It is from our culture that we place importance in the status of our children, our women and overall, our aiga (family). It is with a heavy heart that such values are very much being threatened.^[11]
22. When addressing the familial relationship between the defendant and victim she further stated:
    • “The biological relationship between the victims and the defendant makes these offending very serious and at the high end of the scale. It does not matter whether it was done once or a couple of times, the fact that such a callous act even occurred is repulsive.”^[12]
23. It is beyond dispute that the victim has suffered both physically and emotionally as a result of the offending. She has been deprived of her self-esteem, dignity, and integrity as a young woman. These consequences must be understood in light of the broader concerns expressed by Justice Tuatagaloa in Police v SF. Her remarks highlight the urgent need to protect young girls from predatory behaviour, particularly within families, where trust and cultural values of protection and respect should be strongest. The erosion of these values underscores the seriousness of offending that occurs within the family unit, as it damages not only the victim’s wellbeing but also the cultural foundations of family and community.
24. In addition, the familial relationship between the defendant and the victim elevates the gravity of the offending beyond Band 1 of the tariff in Key v Police. The betrayal of trust inherent in such a relationship magnifies the harm suffered by the victim, making the conduct not only repugnant but also deeply destructive to her sense of safety within her own family. This betrayal, combined with the victim’s personal suffering and the wider societal concerns articulated by the Court, reinforces the conclusion that a custodial sentence is essential to reflect the seriousness of the offending and to protect vulnerable victims.
25. For the rape charge, taking into account the aggravating factors, I find that the offending falls within Band 2 of the tariff set out in Key v Police. I therefore adopt 9 years as the starting point for the charge of rape. From this, I deduct 12 months to reflect the defendant’s young age, 18 months for his status as a first offender and prior good character, and a further 6 months for the apology and reconciliation efforts. This results in a total of 6 years. From this total, I deduct 30% (equivalent to 22 months) to reflect the early guilty plea. The end sentence is therefore 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment for the charge of rape.
26. For the three charges of sexual conduct with a girl under the age of 16, I consider a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each of the charges to be appropriate. From this, I deduct 4 months for the defendant’s age, 6 months for his previous good character, and 3 months for his apology and remorsefulness. This leaves a total of 1 year and 11 months. Applying a further deduction of 30% (equivalent to 7 months) for the early guilty plea, the end sentence is 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment for each of the three sexual conduct charges.
27. For each of the two counts of indecent act, the appropriate sentence is 1 year imprisonment.

Conviction and Sentence

28. Accordingly, you are sentenced as follows:
    • (i) For the charge of rape, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment;
    • (ii) For the three charges of sexual conduct with a girl under the age of 16 you are convicted and sentence to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment for each charge; and
    • (iii) For the two charges of indecent act, you are sentenced to 1 year imprisonment for each charge.
29. All sentences will be served concurrently which means that your total end sentence for all of the charges will be 4 years and 2 months imprisonment less any time already spent in custody.

JUSTICE KERSLAKE

^[1] [2006] WSSC 1
^[2] [2000] WSSC 38
^[3] [2008] WSSC (9 May 2008). Also applied in Police v SF [2024] WSSC 91 (08 October 2024) by Tuatagaloa J.
^[4] [2013] WSCA 03
^[5] [2010] NZCA 114
^[6] [2025] WSSC 22 (17 April 2025)
^[7] [2024] WSSC 95 (11 November 2024)
^[8] (Unreported Supreme Court Judgement of Tuala- Warren J dated 26/11/19)
^[9] Police v Matamua [2017] WSSC 142 (8 November 2017) 3 years’ imprisonment; Police v Iakopo [2017] WSSC 162 (22 November 2017) Two years’ imprisonment.
^[10] Police v Viliamu [2019] WSSC 6 (25 October 2019)
^[11] Police v SF [2024] WSSC 91 (08 October 2024), para 18.
^[12] Ibid, para 20.