Five win appeal against jail terms

Press, 16 June 1988, Page 7

Five win appeal against jail terms

A mother, three daughters and her son have apealed successfully against jail terms of six months imposed in the High Court at Timaru after conviction on a joint charge of aggravated burglary. The Court of Appeal ■ ruled yesterday that because of the special circumstances of the offence and the applicants, the jail sentences need

not be maintained. Instead it convicted and discharged Afe Faavae, aged 56, a Dunedin housewife, and imposed sentences of community service on her three daughters and her son. Heta Leata Duffy, aged 31, was sentenced to 120 hours of community service; Sepora Sasuiu, aged 35, to 60 hours of community service; and Suiena Toe, aged 29, to 40 hours of community service. The son, Unite Sasuiu,

aged 24, was sentenced to 60 hours of community service, subject to his consent to this service. The Court said another form of sentence would be considered if he did not consent.

Pre-sentence reports indicated that the three sisters were willing to do community service. The Court of Appeal said that the sentences reflected the degree of involvement of each applicant, and that Suiena’s sentence took into account her greater problems in serving a community sentence with two small children. The Court said that all five applicants have, or had, associations with the Dunedin Samoan Congregation of the Assembly of God. They were described by a pastor as a good family and had displayed contrition and repentance to the congregation.

“They have been brought into shame within their own community as a result of the widely publicised remarks of the Judge and they have been imprisoned for 10 days.” The Court of Appeal agreed with the applicants’ counsel, Mr M. J. Knowles, that they had let themselves down by an isolated incident in which they made an improper and foolish response to some hurtful insults.

Although Heta and possibly some of the applicants had been guilty of “serious violence” in terms of the Criminal Justice Act, the special circumstances of offenders and the offence meant that the jail sentences need not be maintained. The Court said that the letter sent to the family had been “grossly .provocative.”

The Court of Appeal

had said earlier that appeal against conviction, when a plea of guilty had been entered, could only succeed in exceptional circumstances. Mr Knowles had argued that the applicants had riot understood the charge and had not intendedto admit that they were guilty; and that otf' the admitted facts they could not have been convicted of the offences they pleaded guilty to. The Court of Appeal said that one difficulty was ascertaining what had actually happened, and that justice demanded that consideration be given to the allegations of the complaintants as well as the applicants. In dismissing leave to appeal against conviction, the Court said that the applicants had had independent legal advice, and the help of an interpreter from an early

stage. After an opportunity had been given to discuss the allegations against them with an interpreter, they had elected to plead guilty on the basis that they were all involved.

The Court also noted that they had declined' the Judge’s invitation to change their pleas. Mr Justice Holland had “bent over backwards” to see that they were not wrongly convicted through any misunderstanding of the implications of their plea. Not only had he invited a late change of plea, but he had stood the case down to allow witnesses to be brought to the court. ‘

The Court of Appeal hearing was held on April 20 before Mr Justice McMullin (president), Mr Justice Casey, and Mr Justice Gallen. Mr R. B. Squire represented the Crown.