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

Police v MS [2025] WSYC 1 (19 December 2025)

IN THE YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
Police v MS [2025] WSYC 1 (19 December 2025)

IN THE YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Informant

AND

SM, female of [x-village]

Young Person

Counsel: Ms R Fong for Prosecution
Ms Diana Roma for the Defendant

Sentence: 19^th December 2025

RESERVED DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. The young person entered a guilty plea to the charge of negligent driving causing death pursuant to section 39A(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960 (the Act) and driving without a valid driver’s license pursuant to section 27(a) of the Act.
2. The Act sets out the penalty as follows for section 39(A)(3) and section 27(a) and 72A(2):
   • “(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and by that act causes the death of any person:
   • (a) commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten (10) years or to a fine not exceeding 250 penalty units; and
   • (b) the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one (1) year”
   • .................
   • (2) A person convicted of an offence under this Ordinance or any regulation made thereunder for which no special penalty is provided is liable in the case of the first offence to a fine not exceeding 2 penalty units and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding 4 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months

THE OFFENDING

3. On the 9^th September 2025, the young person was home at [x-village] with her young siblings whilst the parents were out. Her two year old baby brother started crying as he was hungry. The young person made the decision to go to the shop to buy food accompanied by one of her brothers using the family car that was parked outside.
4. The prosecution accept that the young person was not aware that the brakes on the vehicle were not working properly such was the reason the parents did not use the vehicle that day. On or about 2pm, the young person drove the motor vehicle along East Coast Road travelling West to the shop. The young person drove the vehicle back home travelling East after returning from the shop and experienced the vehicle suddenly going out of control as the brakes failed to work.
5. The vehicle picked up speed and was swerving side to side as the young person was worried and did not know what to do. At [x-village], the vehicle was heading towards a fence and she quickly turned the vehicle to the left side unaware of the fourteen (14) years old young male victim walking on the left side heading West.
6. The victim was struck by the vehicle but there is no evidence as to whether he was struck head-on or from the side of the vehicle. The vehicle continued swerving back unto the road and veered to the right opposite side where it came to a stop.
7. The young victim was rushed to the hospital where he remained in the Intensive Care Unit for 10 days before succumbing to the seriousness of his injuries and passed away on the 19^th September 2025.

THE YOUNG PERSON

8. The young person is sixteen years old and the third child of six children of her parents children, three girls and two boys. She lives with her parents and siblings at [x-village]. At the time of the offence, she was attending PGC in Year 9.
9. She is an obedient child whom her parents rely heavily on when she comes home on weekends from school.

THE VICTIM

10. The Victim at the time of the accident was a young boy 14 years old of [x-village] attending school. His 54 year old father expressed grief and heartbreak for the loss of his son and how their family are trying to cope with the victim’s sudden passing and absence in their lives. They continue to be tortured by the fond memories of their son as well as sorrow for his life being taken away at such a young age. The father expressed anger at what happened but also sympathy for the young person responsible for the death of his son.

AGGRAVATING FEATURES OF THE OFFENDING

11. Although knowledge of having no licence and yet still proceeded to drive a motor vehicle leading to a fatal accident is an aggravating factor of the offending, the offending is tantamount to the intuitive mind of a young person not being able to comprehend the real danger of being in charge of a motor vehicle. The initial challenge and excitement of driving a motor vehicle as if it was a big toy and the fear that followed of losing control leading to tragic horror brought the realization and regret of disobedience. The general reasonable and prudent person would not drive a motor vehicle intending on causing an accident except when ignoring the road rules raising the potential risk of an accident. Given the disobedient and irresponsible state of mind of the young person, she could not have comprehended the severity and danger of the situation. I find that there were no aggravating features of the offending other than the act itself.

THE MITIGATING FEATURES OF THE OFFENDING

12. The Prosecution accept that the brakes on the vehicle were faulty and largely responsible for the accident. There is no suggestion that the young person was aware that the brakes were faulty nor that the young person was careless, reckless or driving dangerously except when she panicked and the vehicle went out of control.

AGGRAVATING FEATURES AS AN OFFENDER

13. The young person is a first offender and there are no aggravating features personal to her as an offender.

MITIGATING FEATURES OF THE OFFENDER

14. I take into account the defendant’s previous good character, the ifoga and apology to the victim’s family, restitution of ST$8,000 and two large fine mats as well as the consequences of the stigma and embarrassment tainting the good name and reputation of her family.
15. In her favour, the young person had undergone rehabilitation and counselling with Reverend Dr Taipisia Leilua, the CCCS General Secretary and responsible spiritual overseer at PGC.

DISCUSSION

16. In approaching uniformity in sentencing, I refer to Police v Punivalu Alafaio^[1] where Justice Nelson stated:
    • 14. As counsels have correctly noted, cases of negligent driving causing death generally fall into two categories. Firstly, accidents caused by momentary inattention or error of judgment on the part of the person driving the motor vehicle. These kinds of cases lie at the lower end of the negligence scale and do not normally attract a penalty of imprisonment. The second and more serious category are accidents caused by driving in a manner that shows a high degree of recklessness or a selfish disregard for the safety of others. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum and normally results in an imprisonment sentence.
17. The facts of this case do not seem to fit in any of the two categories referred. As alluded earlier, there is no evidence that the young person was driving recklessly or dangerously. It was only when the young person realized that there were no brakes did she then panic and tried to steer the vehicle left to right with perhaps the hope to slow it down. It was in this turn of events that the victim was hit and caused traumatic brain injuries which he succumbed to after ten days in hospital. In this case, the faulty brakes and sheer inexperience of the young person was the cause of the fatal accident. She was negligent in that she should not have been driving in the first place. However, her young age would suggest that she could not have comprehended the severity of her decision to drive a motor vehicle which was “fun and cool” but also that it could also be a dangerous weapon when out of control.
18. I acknowledge the young life that was lost in this matter and this is very reason why this law exists to protect further life from being victims of drivers who do not take their duties to be in charge of a motor vehicle responsibly and according to law. However, this is not a case that falls within the serious second category referred to in Police v Alefaio.
19. The principles of sentencing youth offenders requires the Youth Court Judge to take a more pro-active, holistic and creative approach to sentencing given the merits of each case and in particular the age of the offenders. In this regard, rehabilitation programs become important mechanisms in steering first time young offenders to the right direction. A conviction and imprisonment is a last resort.
20. Ms Roma has applied for a discharge without conviction pursuant to section 69 and 70 of the Sentencing Act 2016 and section 15(1) of the Young Offenders Act 2007. Counsel submits in support of this application the facts:
    • (i) the young age of the offender;
    • (ii) her early guilty plea;
    • (iii) restitution and cultural apology done by her family to the victim’s family;
    • (iv) the young person is a first offender;
    • (v) personal circumstances of the young person being at school; and
    • (vi) the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction with or without imprisonment to your person would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

CONCLUSION

21. I am satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction to the young person would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. I therefore discharge the young person without conviction. However, the young person is ordered to do 50 hours’ community service work to be completed by the end of June 2026.

JUDGE MATA’UTIA RAYMOND SCHUSTER

^[1] WSSC [19 December 2023] unreported