[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 68

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

Police v Samoa [2008] WSSC 68 (22 August 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

ISUMU SAMOA
male of Matautu-tai and
TALAPUSI MASOE
male of Faleata and Matautu-tai
Accuseds’ in person

Counsels: Ms Faumuina-Tuugafor prosecution
Accuseds’ in person

Sentencing Date: 22 August 2008

SENTENCE BY JUSTICE VAAI

This is one of the serious cases of grievous bodily harm to come before this court. The victim suffered severe injuries to his face as a result of a cowardly act by the two accuseds.

From the summary of facts which both defendants have confirmed I accept there has been no provocation whatsoever from the victim which caused the two accused to viciously assault the victim. The victim asked Talapusi on the night in question why he bullied his young siblings and cousins. In response Talapusi asked the victim whether he was physically challenging them. And yet the first person to throw the punch was not Talapusi but the other co-accused Isumu. After that punch the victim tried to stand up and it was then that Talapusi approached him from behind and punched him on the face causing the victim to become unconscious on the ground. And while the victim was lying helplessly on the ground the two accuseds continued to deliver blows to his face. People who passed by tried to stop the two defendants from further assaults but did not succeed as the two defendants were too strong. The summary of facts says the defendants continued to punch and beat the victim with their hands and beer bottles as he laid unconscious on the ground. The two accuseds then walked away leaving the victim unconscious on the ground. The police were subsequently allerted and they took the victim to the hospital. And this is what the hospital said about the victim. According to the report dated 18th August 2008.

"The victim was brought into the Emergency Department on the 5th July at around 1:45 in the morning. On examination his whole face was swollen and actively bleeding from his mouth. He had lacerations above his left eye requiring stitches and he was swollen and deformed looking left side of his face. Some loose teeth were removed to prevent his from swallowing it. He was later referred to the Dental Department for further management."

The doctor concluded that the victim suffered severe facial injuries as a result of the assault. And I now refer to the report from the Dental Department.

There were haematoma and ecchymosis of both orbitals making both eyes partially closed for 4 – 5 days. Large lacerations on both upper and lower lips. Lips needed correction by plastic surgeons due to the extent of the injuries. The lower anterior teeth from the left canine to right lateral incisor (5 teeth) root stumps had to be extracted as alveolar bone had been fractured. Jaws had been wired to immobilise and reduce the fracture of the mandibular bone. The jaws are to be locked for 5 – 6 weeks. He is apparently attending weekly appointments for reviews of his state. He was admitted to acute 7 for 10 days for intervenous medication and Iv Fluids before the operation. The operation took place in the Operating Theatre under general Anaesthesia and it took 2 hours. The complainant will require both upper and lower false teeth to replace the permanently missing teeth. The integrity of his lower jaw bone is also affected permanently as quite a lot of bone has been lost during the assault and operation.

It is quite obvious from the nature of the assault and the injuries suffered by the victim that a custodial sentence of some length is quite justify in this case. In determining the length of the custodial sentence matters like the degree of violence, the weapon used and the injuries inflicted should be taken into account. The injuries as I have said suffered by the victim were quite serious injuries and they are long lasting injuries. I have referred to the probation report prepared for each of the defendants. I accept that both defendants are remorseful and they are first offenders. But those are matters that I will take into mitigation. However in considering the appropriate sentence, the degree of violence, the weapon used and the nature of the injuries suffered calls for a sentence at the upper end of the scale.

For this offence both defendants are liable to 7 years imprisonment. I take 3 ½ as a starting point. For the early guilty plea I deduct 6 months. For the previous good record I deduct a further 6 months. Each defendant will serve 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

JUSTICE VAAI