The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on whether former Manu Samoa head coach, Mase Mahonri Schwalger, can appeal his conviction before sentencing, following extensive legal arguments from both the defence and prosecution.
Mase was found guilty in May 2026 of eight charges of sexual assault involving two victims aged 14 and 19 at the time of the offending.
Justice Vui Clarence Nelson found Schwalger guilty of five counts of indecent assault, one count of committing an indecent act, one count of assault with intent to commit sexual violation, and one count of common assault.
The rugby icon maintains his innocence and continues to deny the allegations against him. Mase has filed an appeal with applications to defer his sentencing until the appeal is heard and decided.
The hearing before Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke this week focused on two applications filed by the Schwalger’s Counsel, Taimalelagi Leinafo Strickland.
There is an application for leave to appeal the conviction before sentencing, and a separate application seeking to stay the sentencing proceedings until the appeal is determined.
One of the key elements of Mase’s Appeal as argued by his lawyer, is that the trial judge did not allow them to submit evidence relating to the complainant’s sexual history which the defence says is relevant to the complainant’s credibility and alleged motive to fabricate the allegations against Mase.
Mase’s Counsel argued that under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a person has the right to appeal a conviction once found guilty, and that this right is not dependent on sentencing taking place first.
Leinafo also relied on the Acts Interpretation Act, arguing that its definition of a conviction includes “a finding of guilt, whether formally entered or not.”
Counsel said this means the applicant is already entitled to appeal because the trial judge has already found him guilty.
“A conviction is not necessarily when sentence is formally passed, but it can include a finding of guilt.”
During the hearing, Justice Leiataualesa questioned parties extensively on the interpretation of the legislation and noted what appeared to be a significant difference between Samoa’s statutory framework and that of New Zealand.
“The statutory landscape in New Zealand is a little different because there is no such definition as appears in our Acts Interpretation Act.”
Justice Leiataualesa observed that New Zealand does not have the same statutory definition of “conviction” found in Samoa’s Acts Interpretation Act.
“When you read the definition of conviction into Section 176, that then means he has a right to appeal at this stage before sentence.”
Private Prosecutor Magele Su’a Leone Su’a-Mailo accepted that the applicant has a right to appeal the conviction but argued that, as a matter of practice, such appeals should only proceed after sentencing unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Magele Su’a relied on New Zealand authorities, including the Prasad decision, submitting that although appeals before sentencing are possible, they remain the exception rather than the rule.
Su’a further opposed the application to stay sentencing, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the normal course of criminal proceedings.
Su’a submitted that the applicant has already been found guilty and is no longer presumed innocent, and that both the complainants and the public have an interest in seeing the case concluded without unnecessary delay.
“The defendant has been found guilty. The presumption of innocence no longer applies..”
Taimalelagi maintained that the proposed appeal raises important questions of law and procedural fairness, particularly over the trial judge’s refusal to allow evidence relating to the complainant’s prior sexual history, which the defence says was relevant to the complainant’s credibility and alleged motive to fabricate the allegations.
On that ruling by Justice Vui, Taimalelagi told the Court that a formal application under Section 34 had been made and fully argued before the trial judge.
Taimalelagi said the application was argued orally, with several authorities cited, and that the trial judge later delivered an oral ruling, refusing their application.
“I did actually pursue the application..”
“If the applicant is imprisoned before the appeal is heard and later succeeds, that period of imprisonment cannot be reversed or compensated for,” Taimalelagi argued.
Counsel put to the Court that court decisions from New Zealand should only be used as a guide and should not override Samoa’s laws.
She highlighted Samoa’s laws are different from New Zealand’s, especially under the Acts Interpretation Act and Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
“The practice of the New Zealand courts may be helpful and provide guidance, but it cannot override the language specifically chosen by Parliament in Samoa..”
Justice Clarke asked both lawyers to also address Article 67(3) of the Constitution in their submissions, which may allow the trial judge to sentence the defendant after the appeal is finished, if necessary.
Justice Clarke reserved his decision on both applications with a written ruling expected on or before 14 August.
- Young Tuiga Maker Keeps Family Heritage and Samoa’s Measina Alive - September 12, 2026
- Court of Appeal Dismisses Mase Mahonri Schwalger’s Conviction Appeal - September 11, 2026
- Grandfather Jailed for 13 Years and 6 Months Over Sexual Offences Against Three Granddaughters - September 11, 2026
