The driver of the bus washed off a ford at Lano last year, killing two young children, was back in Court yesterday.
This time, Moe Iosua, is appealing the decision handed down by Supreme Court Justice, His Honour Pierre Slicer in November last year.
The bus driver from Fagae’e and Vaitelefou was sentenced to 11 years in jail. Mr.
Iosua’s appeal is one several cases being dealt with by the Court of Appeal sitting this week. Justice Fisher, Justice Hammond and Justice Blanchard are presiding.
Mr. Iosua was represented by lawyers Alex Su’a and Lagi Tuioti, of Vaai, Hoglund, and Tamati Law.
Lawyer Precious Chang is representing the Attorney General’s office.
In his submission, Mr. Su’a asked the Court of Appeal to consider a ifoga (traditional apology) conducted as a mitigating factor for the defendant.
He pointed out that the ruling from Justice Slicer did not put any weight on the fact that there was a ifoga.
In Slicer’s ruling, he said “there has been no ifoga by him (Moe Su’a) personally or reconciliation with the defendant”.
Further, His Honour Slicer said, “the Mika family who owns the bus has apologized and the victims have accepted that ifoga.
“Mika presented a traditional Samoan apology which has helped the hearts of the families of the victims. Any offers by the defendant has been rejected by the families.”
Justice Slicer’s claim in his ruling was supported by Ms. Chang.
She disputed the submission from Mr. Su’a.
“A ifoga is an act of reconciliation and putting themselves to humiliation and humility so they can live in peace,” she said. “The (bus) company did a ifoga and tried to make peace with the family.
“The employer (Moe Iosua) did not do a ifoga to the family.”
Another ground questioned by defense lawyer, Mr. Su’a was the “indefinite disqualification” of the defendant’s license.
<!-- ads-articles(24.03.14) -->
<ins class="adsbygoogle"
style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-9419815128221199"
data-ad-slot="2395638412"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>{/googleAds}
He told the Court the “indefinite” disqualification means it will discard the defendant’s “qualification and skills as a bus driver”.
However, Justice Blanchard disagrees.
“Indefinite disqualification doesn’t mean you can’t get it back,” he said. “It’s not a life sentence…indefinite in a way that there is no particular period (given) but doesn’t mean you can’t get it back.”
Mr. Su’a said indefinite gives him the impression that it is confiscated (for life).
Justice Blanchard pointed out the law “allows the disqualified person to apply to Court.
“It’s not as bad as you thought,” he said. Lastly, Mr. Su’a referred to the Victim’s impact assessment report.
He said Justice Slicer, placed “considerable weight on the victim’s impact report”. “There’s a significant referral of sentencing Judge to the victim’s impact report,” argued Mr. Su’a. “To us it is more than moderate.” But Justice Blanchard disputed the ground.
“I don’t agree with you,” he said. “I don’t think he did…I think he setup what victims said so they don’t feel what they said is being ignored.
“Here he (Slicer) said, the incident was a combination of stupidity, arrogance and reckless conduct makes up the crime. “He didn’t go any further than that, and I don’t agree with you that he gave a lot of weight on the report.”
The decision from the Court of Appeal is reserved for Friday.
Mr. Iosu’a had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes of manslaughter contrary to the Crime Act 2013, section 102 and 108.
Concurrent charges comprised in Informations S1503, S1558, S1562 and S2384 of 2013 were withdrawn and are dismissed.
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-2469982834957525";
/* Left 300X250 */
google_ad_slot = "8433753430";
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script> {/googleAds}