Sio Vaka (20) was acquitted of manslaughter in relation to the stabbing death of Lipine Fakatene (33) in January last year, after a Supreme Court judge ruled this was self-defence during a tragic altercation at Fua'amotu.

Hon Mr Justice Cato said the incident took place on 17 January, when Vaka had received several assaults, the worst being that he had been hit by a rock, which caused him sufficient discomfort.

After these assaults, he had admitted in his record of interview, that he was plainly so angry, after being assaulted that he went home and obtained a sharp knife from the kitchen. The knife which was produced in evidence was narrow and sharp and looked to be about 6-7 inches in length.

The court heard that he then walked through a cemetery. He got a rock in one hand and the knife in the other and returned to the area where he had been attacked.

He said that if he were to find anyone there who had beaten him that he would injure and beat the person with the knife and a rock. Probably within half an hour, he met up with his mother on the street, who found out that he had been injured. The two then proceeded to try to locate assistance to take him to the hospital.

Altercation

The judge said as they were walking in the township around an area known as the cross roads the deceased, Lipine, and his young brother Sione Fakatene came up to them.

The evidence revealed that Lipine had been informed that the boys had been threatened by the accused at the fale kapa.

"I found that this resulted in Lipine and Sione approaching the accused and his mother. Lipine punched the accused with sufficient force to cause him to stagger back. Lipine was said to have been a strongly built man and bigger than his brother, who also appeared to be robust. While, Vaka by comparison was slightly built, and rather thin.

"The mother intervened and attempted to stand between Lipine and her son and tried to hold Lipine back but was unable to do so.

"I accept the evidence of Sione that he fronted up to the accused and was prepared to fight but that he did not become further involved because Vaka pulled the knife on him in a·stabbing movement or movements, which he avoided."

Hon Mr Justice Cato accepted that, shortly after this, Lipine punched Vaka several times so he quite possibly saw the knife in his confrontation with Sione.

"During this assault, the accused may have attempted to cover his head and then retaliated by stabbing the deceased with a knife twice with sufficient force to enter deep into the body and sever an artery close to the heart. This caused bleeding and lung and heart complications. The deceased collapsed shortly after and died before reaching hospital." 

Self-defence

The judge was satisfied that the stabbing took place during the period when Lipine was further assaulting the accused with several punches and the two brothers were close together.

"I am further satisfied that the stabbing took place when Vaka was in an obvious state of fear that he could be seriously injured if not killed.

“I accept that, at that stage, the stabbing was defensive and was not the subject of reprisal or revenge. This would have been otherwise, if contrary to my finding, any threat of serious harm had passed when he had stabbed Lipine.”

"The accused is accordingly acquitted of manslaughter and discharged from the indictment."

Foolish action

He also made it clear that this judgement does not condone Vaka's foolish action in taking a knife from his home to use in retribution or to avenge the actions of others who had assaulted him, earlier in the day.

Had he used the knife to avenge the actions of others who had assaulted him he likely, would have been prosecuted had others been harmed.

There was no evidence, however, that Lipine or Sione had been involved in any earlier assault, said the judge.

"What followed as a consequence of Vaka's wrongheaded decision to return home, take a knife from the kitchen and return to the scene so as to avenge the earlier assaults, ended ultimately in the tragic death of Lipine.

“Knives and other weapons should not be carried by young men for the purpose of fighting and this case is a demonstration of the very tragic consequences that can occur when they are,” said the Judge.