Jail for second kidnap of wife

Press, 4 June 1988, Page 6

Jail for second kidnap of wife

A Samoan man who kidnapped his wife from her home for the second time in four months drove her to Purau on Banks Peninsula and held her captive for days was told in the High Court yesterday that women were not his property, as might have been part of his own cultural background.

Mr Justice Holland also said when jailing Felise Faaee Filoialii, aged 36, a presser, for three years that he believed the contents of a letter Filoialii wrote indicated that he at first intended to murder his wife, then commit suicide. However, he had changed his mind and had not otherwise harmed her.

Filoialii, described by his counsel, Mr N. J. Dunlop, as a tragic figure who had panicked after going to his wife’s house intending only to speak to her, was jailed for three years for abducting her, and taking her to Banks Peninsula, on April 21. He has given a concurrent sentence of six months jail for breaking and entering her house in Aranui before the abduction.

Filoialii pleaded guilty to the offences in the District Court and had been committed to the High Court for sentence. Outlining the police summary of the offences, Mrs B. M. Read, for the

Crown, said Mrs Joyce Filoialii and the accused were married seven years ago and had three children. After domestic trouble they were separated last December and non-molestation and occupation orders were issued against Filoialii. Since then Mrs Filoialii had lived with the children in the family home in Aranui.

At 11.30 p.m. on April 21 Filoialii broke a window in the rear door and entered the house. Filoialii tied her hands with a crepe bandage, took her outside and forced her into her car. He bound her arms to her body in the car and drove her away, leaving the children alone in the house;

After driving aimlessly for some time Filoialii drove to Purau. On the Purau-Port Levy road the car ran into a fence and could not be restarted. Filoialii then took his wife into the surrounding countryside.

An extensive search was instigated by the police when the car was found, as it was considered Mrs Filoialii was in danger. Filoialii had been sentenced in the High Court on March 30 for offences last December of kidnapping his wife, assaulting her with a knife, aggravated burglary, and committing a breach of the non-molestation order.

A note written by Filoialii to an industrial chap-

lain was found after the latest kidnapping and this gave further cause for concern regarding Mrs Filoialii’s well-being. On April 24, 2>4 days after the kidnapping, Filoialii gave himself up to the police after first extracting promises from his wife that she would not tell the police about a barbecue fork and knife in his possession or suggest that she had been raped.

He also wanted an undertaking that she would allow him to see their children whenever he pleased. A victim impact report contained in the police summary said Mrs Filoialii was dressed in her night clothes during her ordeal. She was tied to Filoialii all the time so that escape was impossible. She suffered minor cuts and abrasions and had nothing to eat for three days. Although found to sleep out she had no warm clothes, or cover from the weather. She was very scared during her ordeal and at one stage feared for her life. “As this is the second time she has been kidnapped by her husband, Mrs Filoialii is scared it will happen again. There is little she can do about it,” Mrs Read said. Mr Dunlop, in his submissions, referred to matters in the police summary with which he said Filoialii disagreed. One of these was his tying of his wife.

His Honour said he accepted thht apart from binding her to prevent her from escaping, Filoialii had not caused any suffering or breaking of the skin. Mr Dunlop said he had been instructed that Filoialii went to the house intending to speak with his wife, not to abduct her. After knocking at the door Filoialii had “panicked” when he saw his wife using the telephone. He broke in to prevent her calling the police, so that he could talk to her “but not to harm her.” Counsel referred at length to the anguish suffered by the accused, and his difficulty in coming to terms with the break-up of his marriage and the non-molestation and occupation orders. Before she obtained those' orders last December, he had been living with her and the children. Within a few days he had been removed from his home. Mr Dunlop said experience of such Family Court cases showed that in many instances such abrupt change of circumstances caused anger and bewilderment to many men. This must have been so, particularly, in Filoialii’s case as he was not well versed in New Zealand’s laws and customs.

After remaining in custody after his arrest on December 22 for the first kidnapping, until his sentencing on March 30, he committed the present offences three weeks later and had remained in custody since his arrest on April 24.

He thus had been at liberty only about five weeks since his marriage break-up.

His wife did not wish to speak to him and that had been reinforced by the law. There had been no marriage guidance counselling. Mr Dunlop said he did not intend to criticise that process, but Filoialii had suffered not only bafflement and bewilderment at the break-up of his marriage but distress that he had not seen his children since early December. Mr Dunlop referred to correspondence seeking to have Filoialii see his children, and his wife’s solicitor’s reply advising he would be advised in due course.

Counsel said it seemed at that point that Filoialii found he could not contain his frustration at the situation. He felt he had to talk with his wife. Nd doubt a chance meeting with his wife in the street earlier that day, and her failure to speak to him, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. He had gone to her house that evening to talk it out with her, but with no intention of abducting her. Mr Dunlop said Filoialii, after the abduction, not only talked but prayed with her in a bizarre episode of ramblings not only through the tussock but ramblings through his own mind. In the end it was Filoialii who cracked and repeatedly asked his wife to kill him with the barbecue fork. He had given himself up, by agreement that they walk hand-in-hand to the police. It was a pathetic end to a tragic episode for a proud eldest son, a highly regarded worker, and until last December a family man and law-abiding citizen.' .. , ' Mr Dunlop submitted the Court should disregard the “misinformed and uninformed clamour” that surrounded the case. He suggested that the Court could treat the case as a very special one, permitting relative leniency in sentencing.

Mr Justice Holland referred to the letter written by Filoialii, recovered by the police, the contents of which were said to have given cause for concern for his wife’s safety.

He asked counsel whether the passage referring to their “dying together” indicated the possibility of his murdering his wife, then committing suicide. Mr Dunlop said Filoialii

denied that that was his intention. His meaning was that they should live together throughout their lives. His Honour said he really could not believe that The message was followed with a plea: “Don’t go looking for us, it’s too late.” He said he had no doubt Filoialii intended harm but later changed his mind, as he had not carried it out. Mr Dunlop said the words were written in the context of an emotive problem, and did not reflect any genuine intention to inflict,harm. His Honour then traversed the circumstances of the offences, and of Filoialii’s background, and of the earlier, similar kidnapping three weeks before. He said he was well aware of the public interest in what the accused had done, and of criticism of the sentence imposed on March 30 for the earlier offences. He said the Judge on that occasion had had favourable reports from Filoialii’s employer, chaplains, and others and of his record as a law-abid-ing citizen before the events of last December. Filoialii had been sentenced to periodic detention in the confident hope that he would not repeat the behaviour. “Within three weeks he did just that,” his Honour said. A person who had been counselling Filoialii could have made approaches, if he had given her time, to ensure that access was given to his children, his Honour said. But his frustration was such that he had behaved in this quite unacceptable way. His Honour said he could accept that Filoialii might not have intended to harm his wife. However, the letter he had written to a counsellor raised grave concern for his and his wife’s safety. Referring to Filoialii’s cultural background, his Honour said he was a Samoan but had been in New Zealand for more than 10 years. It must be obvious to him that in this country women must be treated with the respect they were entitled to. “They are not your property, as may have been part of your cultural background,” his Honour said. He agreed with the sentence imposed on Filoialii in March but the situation was quite different now. The predictions of counsellors and hopes of the Judge were not achieved. Filoialii had been given a chance in March but had “blown it.” His Honour said the sentences, would take into account Filoialii’s remorse and his ready admissions of guilt after giving himself up to the police.