The Supreme Court of Samoa
Police v Alatonu [2012] WSSC 56

Case name:  Police v Alatonu
Citation: [2012] WSSC 56
Decision date:  21 May 2012
Parties: Police v Naomi Alatonu female of Nofoalii and Lano Savaii
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): 
Jurisdiction:  Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Nelson J
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: L Taimalelagi for prosecution, A Roma for defendant  
Catchwords: 
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
THE POLICE
Informant

AND

NAOMI  ALATONU  female of Nofoalii and Lano Savaii
Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Mr A Roma for defendant  
Sentence: 21 May 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case appears for sentence on 68 counts of theft as a servant.  The police summary of facts which through counsel she has admitted states that she is a 29 year old female, married with two children.  She was at the relevant time employed by one of the local gas companies as an accounts officer.  Her duties included receiving and reconciling the daily sales of bulk gas as well as bottles of gas.  
What she did in this case was to alter the documentation regarding the number of gas bottles sold each day and she would put the difference into her pocket.  She did this on 68 occasions over a three month period hence the 68 charges against her.  Her thefts ranged from the smallest amount of $70.20 to the highest of $842 odd tala.  The total amount involved in this offending is $21,514.45.  The defendants activities were only discovered during the company stock taking.  
Clearly this was a large systematic theft by an employee over a very short period of time.  And because no restitution has been made it has caused considerable financial loss to her employer.  
Theft as a servant is becoming so common in this country that it seems to be of epidemic proportions.  Every Monday when the court undertakes sentencing there is at least one or more cases of theft as a servant.  By employees who usually held positions of trust in their employment such as in the present case.  As a result the court has evolved a sentencing policy for this offence so that invariably imprisonment penalties are imposed on offenders.  Yet despite such imprisonment penalties the offending continues to plague our community.  
This is yet one more sad case of a bright young woman.  This defendant was educated to University level.  Of good upbringing and character.  Her parents are church ministers.  Giving into temptation or as her counsel has quite properly acknowledged succumbing to greed.  
The maximum penalty for each of these 68 charges is 7 years in prison.  I take into account everything your lawyer has said for you.  The fact that you are a first offender and the fact that you have pleaded guilty to the charges when they were finalized.  But again that must be balanced against the aggravating factors of your offending.  The breach of trust that was involved in the offending, the significant quantum of money, the manner in which it was planned and carried out and concealed in order to avoid detection, the fact that these monies were stolen not as a one off theft but on multiple occasions over a period of three months, in some cases on a daily basis.  The court must also take into consideration the financial effect this has had on your previous employer.  And further the fact that this sort of offending as noted is so prevalent, it is becoming a tsunami of criminal conduct.  
For these charges you will be convicted and sentenced to a period of 2½ years in prison as a total sentence in respect of all charges.  

JUSTICE NELSON