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

Police v MF [2016] WSYC 4 (21 July 2016)

YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
Police v MF [2016] WSYC 4

IN THE YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND:

MF, male of Leauvaa
Young Person

Counsel: A. Tumua for National Prosecution Office
Young Person Unrepresented

Sentence: 21 July 2016

SENTENCE BY JUDGE ROMA

Charge

1. MF, you appear this morning for sentence on the following charges:
   • (i) Being armed with a dangerous weapon (s25, Police Offences Ordinance 1961) with a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment;
   • (ii) Burglary (s174, Crimes Act 2013) with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment;
   • (iii) Theft (s161 & 165(b), Crimes Act 2013) with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment;
   • (iv) Causing serious bodily injury (s118(1), Crimes Act 2013) with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
2. On these charges, you are liable to a maximum penalty of 27 years imprisonment, a clear indication of the seriousness of the charges you are to be sentenced on.
3. The record shows that you pleaded guilty to all 4 charges on 16 June 2016.

Offending

4. According to the prosecution Summary, your offending took place at Tuanai in the afternoon of Sunday 5 June 2016. You and your friends were on your way to swim at the pool. You came across the first complainant’s house and noticed that there was no one there.
5. You approached the first complainant’s home, entered without the first complainant’s knowledge and permission and took the following items:
   • (i) 3 bluetooth speakers valued at $378.60;
   • (ii) Pocket knife valued at $100.00;
   • (iii) Car stereo valued at $800.00;
   • (iv) Camera valued at $299.00;
   • (v) Cash of $15.00
6. The total value of the stolen items was $1,592.00.
7. Using some of those items, you bought alcohol which you and your friends then drank before you continued onto the pool.
8. At the pool, you had an argument with the second complainant. You threw a rock at the complainant but missed. You then swung a knife at the second complainant causing a laceration and cut to the tip of his left ear.
9. You dispute that the items you took included a camera and cash. You also dispute that you used a knife but only the rock that you threw at the second complainant. There is merit in that part of your account because you had not been charged with being armed with a knife but a rock.
10. Even if I accept your version, the value of the other items you stole from the first complainant is nevertheless significant, and the injuries suffered by the second complainant were serious.
11. In the pre sentence report, you told Probation that these incidents occurred in the afternoon on a Sunday, a normally peaceful time when most people were resting following the usual morning Church services and ‘toonai’’ (lunch).
12. You also told Probation that your group of friends wanted to drink alcohol but had no money, so you decided to break into the first complainant’s house and stole the items so that you could buy alcohol from one of the village shops. Simply, that is a very silly excuse.

Victims

13. The first victim is a 47 year old male of Tuanai.
14. The second victim is a 19 year old male of Leauvaa.

Accused Young Person

15. You are now 16 years of age. According to the Summary, you are employed at a water business at Vaivase uta.

Aggravating features of your offending

16. The following are aggravating features relating to your offending:
    • (i) Premeditation – You knew that the first complainant was not at his. You planned to break into his house and carried out your plan.
    • (ii) The number and value of the items stolen – Even without the items you dispute, the total value of the other items is significant;
    • (iii) Home invasion;
    • (iv) Acts of violence and the use of objects (stone and knife which you dispute) as weapon;
    • (v) Impact on the victims – Your offending resulted in loss of property to the first complainant and injury to the second complainant.

Mitigating features of your offending

17. Whilst the injuries suffered by the second complainant were serious, they were not life threatening compared to other matters that have come before the Court.

Aggravating factors relating to you as an offender

18. You have a previous conviction for an assault charge. On that previous charge, you were sentenced to supervision. But Probation says in the pre sentence report for your present matter that you did not comply with the conditions imposed under your previous sentence, and that when the Probation officers approached you, you would always run away.

Mitigating factors relating to you as an offender

19. The only mitigating factor relating to you as an offender is your early guilty plea to all charges.

Sentencing Principles

20. Relevant in considering the appropriate sentence are the principles referred to in paragraph 2 of the prosecution’s sentencing memorandum. Amongst those are to hold you accountable for the loss and harm caused to the victims; promote a sense of responsibility in you for that loss and harm; provide for the interests of the victims and denounce the conduct of your offending.
21. I am also guided by the sentencing provisions of the Young Offenders Act 2007 under sections 15 and 16.
22. Previous sentences of this Court in similar offending are also helpful. One relevant sentencing decision cited by the prosecution in its sentencing memorandum is that of Her Honour Judge Tuatagaloa as she then was, in Police v. Silao Lelega (31 July 2014).
23. From the memorandum, the young accused in that case was previously charged with burglary and imposed a non custodial sentence with conditions. On a subsequent burglary charge, he was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

Discussion

24. In accordance with sections 15 and 16 of the Young Offenders Act 2007, I must firstly decide whether the interests of justice require your conviction for the charges.
25. Considering the number of the charges, gravity of your offending, the impact on the victims and your previous conviction for a related offence, I am satisfied that the interests of justice require your conviction.
26. The next question I must consider is which sentencing option under section 16 I impose.
27. Prosecution submits that a custodial sentence with a starting point of 12 months in an appropriate sentence. Again I find highly relevant the sentence in Police v. Silao Lelega (31 July 2014) referred to above.
28. I also note from the pre sentence meeting report that a pre sentence agreement could not be reached and that the 2 complainants, in particular the first, prefer to leave the matter to the discretion of the Court.
29. Again, I have considered the seriousness of the charges against you, your culpability and the totality of your offending. I remind myself of your previous conviction for a related offence and Probation’s advice that you did not comply with any of the conditions imposed on the Court’s non custodial sentence in that matter.
30. In short, you were granted the Court’s leniency and given an opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community. You did not use that opportunity.
31. In my view, a custodial sentence is the only reasonable alternative available to this Court.

Decision

32. For the foregoing reasons, I sentence you as follows:
    • (i) On the charges of Burglary and Theft, I adopt a starting point of 9 months. I deduct a 1/3 for your guilty pleas leaving a period of 6 months. You are convicted of both charges and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for each charge;
    • (ii) On the charge of Causing serious bodily injury, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment;
    • (iii) On the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, you are convicted and discharged.
33. Your sentences are to be served concurrently, meaning that you will only serve 6 months imprisonment. The time that you spent in custody will be deducted from your sentence.

JUDGE FEPULEAI A ROMA