R v Samoa - [2016] NZHC 2731

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF CO-OFFENDER'S TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-441-000010

[2016] NZHC 2731

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH SAM SAMOA

Hearing: 15 November 2016

Appearances:

S Manning for the Crown

E R Fairbrother QC for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF EDWARDS J

R v SAMOA [2016] NZHC 2731 [15 November 2016]

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland Counsel: E R Fairbrother QC, Napier

Introduction

[1] Mr Samoa you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.1 The only issue in your case is whether a finite sentence or a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed.

[2] Before I go on I wish to recognise the presence of Mr Poi and Mr Poi’s family and support here today and acknowledge the devastation caused to Mr Poi and his family by the attack.

Offending

[3] The offending took place in March 2015 at Hawkes Bay Regional Prison. You, a co-offender, and Mr Poi were all prisoners in the same unit. You arranged for the victim’s pregnant partner, Ms Mohi, to smuggle a package of contraband into the prison on the prison’s family day. The package was not delivered as planned.

[4] When you and your co-offender discovered that fact, you approached Mr Poi and returned with him to your co-offender’s cell. Your co-offender and Mr Poi entered the cell first, and you followed approximately 12 seconds later. There you, and your co-offender, viciously beat Mr Poi.

[5] Mr Poi suffered multiple fractures to the left side of his face including his jaw, nose, cheek and eye socket. Multiple teeth were dislodged and significant bleeding was caused around his brain. This caused a traumatic brain injury from which Mr Poi is unlikely to recover. Those injuries were the result of blunt force trauma and appear to have been caused by multiple stomps to the left side of Mr Poi’s head.

[6] Following the attack, your co-offender left the cell, but you remained and attempted to bring Mr Poi back to consciousness by sitting him up and splashing water

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

on his face. After about 20 minutes your co-offender instructed another prison inmate to get Mr Poi out of the cell. At this point in time, Mr Poi was unconscious with his tongue obstructing his breathing. The other prison inmate forced it forward and rolled Mr Poi into the recovery position. That action may well have saved Mr Poi’s life. The other prisoner persuaded you to help him take Mr Poi to the guard office where emergency medical assistance was requested and Mr Poi was taken to Hawkes Bay Hospital.

[7] You initially denied any involvement…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Samoa

Details

AGLC: R v Samoa [2016] NZHC 2731
Case: [2016] NZHC 2731
Decision Date: 15 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Sam Samoa appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing after pleading guilty to one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the maximum penalty for which is 14 years' imprisonment. The primary issue for the court was whether a finite sentence or a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed on Samoa. Samoa, a prisoner at Hawkes Bay Regional Prison, along with a co-offender, viciously beat another prisoner, Mr Poi, causing severe injuries including multiple fractures and a traumatic brain injury. The attack was premeditated, with Samoa and his co-offender arranging for contraband to be smuggled into the prison. Following the attack, Samoa attempted to revive Mr Poi, but the immediate intervention of another prisoner was crucial in saving Mr Poi's life. The court considered the significant harm caused by the attack, the premeditated nature of the offence, and Samoa's extensive criminal history, which included multiple serious violent offences. The court also evaluated reports from health assessors suggesting that Samoa had a high risk of future offending, particularly in the absence of rehabilitation efforts. Despite these factors, the court concluded that it could not be satisfied that Samoa was likely to commit another violent offence if released at the expiry of any sentence. Consequently, the court imposed a finite sentence of eight years and five months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and two months.

The court's reasoning highlighted the brutality of the attack, the severity of Samoa's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation to mitigate future offending. The court noted that while Samoa's risk of reoffending was high, the long-term nature of his current sentence and the potential for rehabilitation programmes to address his substance abuse and behavioural issues meant that the court could not be certain of a future risk. Therefore, the court determined that the conditions for a sentence of preventive detention were not met, and a finite sentence was appropriate. This decision underscores the court's focus on both the need to hold Samoa accountable for his actions and the potential for rehabilitation to prevent future harm.

Orders