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

Police v Peleti [2013] WSSC 134 (4 November 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Peleti [2013] WSSC 134

Case name: Police v Peleti

Citation: [2013] WSSC 134

Decision date: 04 November 2013

Parties: POLICE v TAUILEVA PELETI, female of Vaitele-fou and Manono-uta.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
L Taimalelagi and O Tagaloa for prosecution

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution
AND:
TAUILEVA PELETI, female of Vaitele-fou and Manono-uta.
Defendant

Counsel: L Taimalelagi and O Tagaloa for prosecution
Defendants unrepresented
Sentence: 04 November 2013

SENTENCE

1. The police summary of facts which the defendant has admitted says that she is 24 years old from Faleu Manono and Vaitele-uta and has one child. The complainant is a 44 year old female of Lalovaea and New Zealand.
2. On 12 September 2013 at 2:15 pm the complainant went into the Westpac Bank Apia to take care of a banking transaction. While this matter was being attended to the complainant put her bag on the floor. The defendant saw that and stole the bag without the complainant realizing it. The bag contained the following items: AUD750 equivalent to $1,567.50, NZD$100 in cash equivalent to $181.00, two credit cards, Samsung galaxy mobile phone valued at AUD500 equivalent to $1,045.00, two New Zealand passports valued at NZ$150.00 equivalent to $271.50 each, one Samoan passport valued at $200.00, headphones valued at $18.00, video camera valued at AUD265.00 equivalent to $553.85, digital camera valued at AUD200 equivalent to $418.00 and the handbag itself which was a brand name bag valued at AUD180 equivalent to $376.20. Total value of the items stolen by the defendant was $4,903.36.
3. When the complainant realized her bag had gone missing she alerted bank security and a check of the security camera footage showed the defendant to be the culprit. She was apprehended by the police and charged with the thefts of these items, a charge to which she has pleaded guilty. As indicated in previous sentencing the prevalence of the offence of theft means deterrent sentences are normally issued by the court. Even for first offenders who have pleaded guilty. In this case the defendant is a first offender who has pleaded guilty to stealing a bag which belongs to a visitor to Samoa.
4. I would say the defendant knew that. Because it is clear from her probation office report that she is not a silly girl. She has held good working positions during her working career. I do not know why you did this Tauileva because you are obviously intelligent and talented. It is a shame you are not putting your talents to better use.
5. It is to the defendants credit that she has pleaded guilty and the police have confirmed that many of the items that were in the bag have been recovered and returned to its owner. Certainly all the items of great value have been recovered. That to some extent operates in the defendants favour as well.
6. The offence that you have pleaded guilty tocarries a maximum penalty of not less than 7 years in prison. Because it has been brought under the new Crimes Act sections 161 (1) (a) and 165 (b). Considering all the relevant circumstances for your matter an appropriate start point for your offending would be a period of 2 years in prison. From that you are entitled to certain deductions Tauileva which I will now make. For the fact that you have a good clean previous record of service to your family who speak very highly of you as does your faifeau, I will deduct 6 months from your beginning sentence. Leaves a balance of 1½ years. For the fact that you have pleaded guilty to this offence and saved the courts time you are entitled to a further deduction of 6 months. Leaves a balance of 12 months. There are no other factors Tauileva that you qualify for deduction for.
7. For this offence you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison. But your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that period.
   

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