[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2008 >> [2008] WSSC 14

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Police v Hunt [2008] WSSC 14 (26 March 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

OTTO HUNT male of Aleisa.
Accused

Editor's note: Sentence by Sapolu CJ

Counsel: R Titi and G Patu for prosecution
S K Ainu’u for accused

Sentence: 26 March 2008

SENTENCE

The charges

[1] The accused appears for sentence on two charges of rape each of which carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. He had pleaded not guilty to both charges in 2005 when he was represented by different counsel. It was only on 18 February 2008 when represented by this present counsel that he changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. However, when the accused appeared for sentence on 17 March 2008 he denied the crucial parts of the prosecution’s summary of facts the effect of which is that the accused was denying that he raped the victim. After a short adjournment for the accused to consult with his counsel, the accused withdrew his denial.

[2] As it appears from the summary of facts, on Wednesday 16 February 2005 at about 9am in the morning, the victim who is a 17 year old female from the village of Lotofaga, Safata, was left by a cousin to wait at an abandoned Samoan house at Vaitoloa, Faleata, whilst the cousin attended to an errand. This house is situated at the back of the house of the accused’s uncle at Vaitoloa.

[3] The accused was standing outside the house of his uncle when he noticed the victim and thus approached her whilst she was sitting outside the Samoan house.

[4] The accused in his statement made to the police says that he approached the victim with the intention of having sexual intercourse with her.

[5] When the accused reached the victim, he asked her as to who she was with before he told her to go inside the room of the Samoan house to hide. The accused said to the police that he wanted the victim to go inside the room so that he would have the chance to do a bad think to her.

[6] The accused then followed the victim inside the room and held her hand. When the victim tried to pull her hand away, the accused held both her hands and pushed her down.

[7] The victim fell down and rolled on her side in an attempt to sit up. However, the accused turned her on her back and jumped on top of her. The victim screamed but the accused covered her mount with his hand.
[8] The accused pulled down the victim’s shorts and panties and removed her top and bra. The accused then inserted his penis inside the victim’s vagina and had sexual intercourse with her.

[9] Afterwards, the victim was seen crying by a female relative of the accused. Seeing the victim in a distressed condition, the accused’s relative tried to enter the room but the accused chased her away.

[10] The accused then turned to the victim again and started to suck her breasts before he proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her the second time as the victim laid motionless and cried.

[11] A male relative of the accused then came over to the house but the accused held the victim inside the room and told that she would not leave until she gave birth. The accused said to the police that at that time he was getting ready to have sex with the victim for the third time. When the accused looked away, the victim grabbed a lavalava with which she covered herself on her escape. She reported the accused to the police.

The accused

[12] The accused is a 56 year old male of Aleisa but was staying with his uncle at Vaitoloa at the time of this offence. He was then 53 years old. He is single and unemployed. He is a frequent churchgoer as it appears from the testimonial from his church.

[13] The accused left school at primary level and does not appear from what is said in the pre-sentence to have had any formal employment.

[14] He has four previous convictions for offences involving dishonesty. The last of those previous convictions were for burglary and theft in 1991.

The victim

[15] The victim is now a 17 year old female but was 14 years at the time of this offence.

[16] As it appears from the victim impact report, the victim did not suffer any physical injuries from this incident. However, this incident had affected her psychologically as it had made her sad and depressed. This is apart from the emotional distress she went through at the time was raped.

Aggravating features

[17] The age difference between the accused and the victim is 39 years. The victim was also only 14 years at the time of this incident.

[18] The accused also had sexual intercourse with the victim twice. When a female relative of the accused tried to intervene to help the victim, the accused chased her away. The accused was getting ready to have sexual intercourse with the victim for the third time when his male relative intervened.

[19] The victim was also crying and in a distressed condition but the accused persisted.

Mitigating features

[20] The only mitigating feature in this case is the accused’s plea of guilty. But the long delay in the accused changing his plea from not guilty and the fact he was still denying the crucial parts for the summary of facts until he consulted with his present counsel, have affected the discount to be given in his favour for his guilty plea.

The decision

[1] The purposes of sentencing are retribution, which is to punish the offender for his wrongdoing; deterrence, which is to deter the offender and like-minded people from committing the same or similar type of offence; protection of the community; and rehabilitation, which is to reform the offender.

[2] In this case, rehabilitation is not relevant given the age of the accused and his previous convictions.

[3] As a starting point for sentence, I will take 8 years. This is now generally applied as the starting point for sentence in rape cases. I will deduct 6 months for the guilty plea. That leaves 7½ years.

[4] The accused is convicted and sentenced to 7½ years imprisonment on each of the two charges against him. Both sentences are to be concurrent. Any time that the accused spent in custody on remand is to be deducted from that sentence.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitors
Attorney-General’s Office, Apia for prosecution
Meredith & Ainu’u Law Office