Police v Gali.

Source: (1999) WSSC 19 (29th September). Supreme Court of Samoa. Downloaded 15 November 2005.

I do take into account in favour of each of you the fact that an ifoga has been performed and accepted. In a case such as
this, that fact cannot absolve me from the responsibility of imposing the sentences of the Supreme Court – but I can say
that, the customary form of apology having been performed [in terms of traditional presentation of a large number (60 to
100) of fine mats, 1 large fine mat (for forgiveness) and $1,000.00] and accepted, and the consequential reconciliation
having occurred, and the peace and harmony having been restored, that all goes a good way towards emphasising that
purpose of punishment [which is, I consider, recognised in Samoa] known as restorative justice, which it is appropriate
to have regard to alongside those other purposes of punishment known as retribution, deterrence, incapacitation (or
public protection), and rehabilitation. Retribution and deterrence, in particular, need less emphasis here because of the
emphasis that has already been given to the concept of restorative justice. The penalty to be imposed by this Court in
each case can be less because of the ifoga which was performed and accepted. (pending)