Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Tolai [2011] WSSC 11 (31 January 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

EPIFANIA TOLAI

female of Leone and Faala Palauli.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms F E Niumata for prosecution
Ms L Tamati for defendant

Sentence: 31 January 2011

SENTENCE

The summary of facts in this matter states that the defendant is a 31 year old female of Leone and Faala Palauli. She is married and has two young daughters and was at the time of these offences employed as a cashier at Samoa Post Limited. As cashier she was responsible for receiving payments from members of the public for use of postal services and also for their mail boxes. And as part of her duties as cashier the normal function of issuing receipts for such payments.

The summary states that what the defendant did was to reissue already used receipt numbers when customers made payments for renewal of their mail boxes and keep the monies that were paid. She did this on 229 separate occasions leading to the 229 charges against her. And the amounts involved on these occasions ranged from mainly payments of $60.00 to the largest one of $320.00. Total amount involved in these thefts came to $14,100.00 none of which has been restituted to her then employer Samoa Post Limited.

Today therefore she appears for sentence on 229 counts of theft as a servant each count of which is punishable by a 7 year maximum penalty. Theft as a servant is one of the most prevalent offences in this country. The courts attitude to theft as a servant is well stated in the case of Pol v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21 where it is stated that the courts attitude to theft as a servant cases is well documented and should be well known to the public by now. Because of the seriousness and prevalence of such offending usually a penalty of imprisonment is imposed. The only time that it is not imposed is if there are exceptional circumstances warranting some other treatment. And as stated in Valaauina the reason for such penalty is to not only deter the offender himself or herself from such future behaviour but also others who may be tempted to follow the offenders example.

The defendants offending in this case was deliberate calculated and according to the charges spanned the first three months of 2010 when people were making payments for services and in particular for their post office mail boxes. There is no doubt a lot of confusion and maladministration was brought about by the defendant stealing monies paid by members of the public for renewal of their mail box rentals. The normal policy of the court should be applied in this case and there are no exceptional circumstance that warrant some other treatment of this defendant.

The appropriate start point for penalty in this case is 5 years in prison. However the defendant is entitled to deductions for certain matters which have been referred to by her counsel in her written submission. Firstly I deduct one-third of that sentence for the defendants guilty plea because that has saved the courts time and resources and is a way of expression of her remorse for what she did. That reduces the penalty from 60 months to 40 months. The defendant is also entitled to a deduction for her previous good character and good record, history and her first offender status as she has not previously appeared before the law. For that I deduct a period of 12 months leaving a balance of 28 months. In respect of these charges the defendant is not entitled to any other deductions she will be convicted and sentenced to 28 months in prison in respect of these charges.

............................
JUSTICE NELSON