Apia, SAMOA — Supreme Court Justice Mata Tuatagaloa has dismissed sex charges against police officer, Leilani Savea. Held last week, Savea was charged with having sexual connection and indecent assault.

According to the court’s written decision, testimony by the victim says that on the night of January 7, 2016 after a night out with friends, the victim left in a taxi. It was indicated that the victim did not have any money to pay for the taxi and so taxi driver dropped her off at the seawall and the police were called.

According to the order, the victim said in testimony during the bench trial she did not know the defendant’s name and she’s never seen him before. It was revealed during the trial that the victim was taken to the police station twice on the same night. The court noted that there were several weaknesses in the victim’s testimony when identifying the defendant, as he was not one of the two police officers who picked her up and took her to the police station the first time. The victim in cross-examination said that she was not sure if the accused was the police officer, which committed the offense against her.

Testimony by the police officers and the taxi driver was that the victim was “drunk.” Justice Tuatagaloa in her order says that the victim “gave confused and self-contradictory” testimony and that identification of the accused “by the victim is clearly of very poor quality. Her evidence (testimony) and memory may be compromised or contaminated because of her being under the influence of alcohol.”

Defense Counsel Ray Schuster noted during the hearing that the testimony during the identification of the accused was tenuous and it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who committed the alleged crime. He moved to dismiss the case noting the inconsistency in the testimony of the victim; the inconsistency of the evidence by the victim and prosecution witnesses; the absence of formal identification procedure in terms of an identification parade as a further weakness and that the evidence (testimony) by prosecution witnesses that the victim identified the accused in their presence is hearsay because the victim never gave such evidence when she testified.

Tuatagaloa noted the victim said in evidence that she remembers the accused because he was one of the two police officers who picked her up and took her to the police station the first time, however this is contrary to the evidence of the two police officers, which picked the victim up the first time.

In cross-examination the victim said she was not sure that it was the accused that was in the room and committed the offending. She reaffirmed this when re-examined by counsel for the prosecution. According to the order, the second time the victim was picked up and taken to the police station she was interviewed by a female officer and then afterwards the victim was taken to the traffic section to identify the police officer whom she said allegedly committed the offending against her earlier on the night. The victim identified the accused while he was asleep.

The court notes that the female officer who interviewed the victim and was said to be present when the victim allegedly identified the defendant, did not testify.

Schuster argued that evidence given by the prosecution witnesses or the police officers was ‘hearsay’ and the victim never said in evidence that she identified the accused on the same night.

Tuatagaloa noted, “The accuracy of what was said cannot be affirmed because the victim who is said to have identified the accused on the same night did not say when she testified that she identified the accused as the police officer who allegedly committed the offending.”

The judge also ruled that the evidence by the police officers is at best ‘hearsay’ and not admissible under the law. Tuatagaloa then ruled in favor of the defense and dismissed all the charges.

It’s unclear when the police officer will return to work.