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

Police v Mupopo [2013] WSSC 150 (16 December 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Mupopo [2013] WSSC 150

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

FILIPO MUPOPO, male of Lufilufi and Luatuanuu.
First Defendant

AND:

POPE LOKENI SU’A, male of Lufilufi and Noaoalii
Second Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa and G Nelson for prosecution
Defendants unrepresented
Sentence: 16 December 2013

SENTENCE

1. These two defendants appear for sentence on one count of burglary one count of theft and one count of intentional damage. Filipo has a record whereas Pope does not for breaking and entering. I will therefore deal with you first Filipo, Pope you may stand down.
2. Filipo falls into the same category as the previous defendant Vaai Panapa. He has a number of previous convictions for burglary and theft. He is a recidivist offender who has been given many chances by the court. He has failed to make use of those chances. There is only penalty now available for you Filipo. Every time you do this you will go to jail. You must understand that very clearly.
3. The police summary of facts which you have admitted states that you are 30 years of age from Lufilufi and Luatuanuu single and unemployed. At around 4:00am on Monday 11 November this year you broke into the shop of the complainant at Faleapuna. You were accompanied in that by your co-defendant Pope. You broke in by cutting the screen wire covering the windows at the rear of the shop and removing the louvers. You not only broke into the premises but you also broke into the metal safe inside the office in the shop. Inside the safe was money. The summary also indicates that you damaged the security cameras of the shop and removed the digital video recorder attached to the monitors. No doubt this was done in an effort to destroy the record of you two entering the premises.
4. The charges against you Filipo lists the sorts of things you took from the shop which includes not only the digital recording system but an assortment of cigarettes, pisupo and other grocery items. You also took a 22 single shot rifle belonging to the shop owner. When the police searched your house they found the gun and some of these items. The total value of what you stole is estimated to be $4,289.60.
5. As a result of this break in you have been charged with burglary, theft and intentional damage to the cameras. Charges to which you and Pope have pleaded guilty.
6. This is obviously a burglary that was pre-planned. You knew when the shop would be deserted. You broke in through the back of the shop and you damaged the camera surveillance equipment to try and hide your identities.
7. The maximum penalty for burglary is 10 years. But in all the circumstances an appropriate start point for sentence would be 3 years. That must be upgraded by one year to 4 years because of your previous convictions. For your guilty plea I will deduct from that 4 years start point one year. Leaving a balance of 3 years. There are no other factors that you can be given credit for Filipo. For the charge of burglary you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. But your time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that.
8. On the charge of theft you will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison concurrent term.
9. On the charge of intentional damage you will be convicted and likewise sentenced to 2 years in prison concurrent term.
10. O lona uiga o le faaiuga mo le mataupu lenei mo lau susuga Filipo e 3 tausaga le taimi e te nofo sala ai i le toese ae tatau ona toese mai le 3 tausaga lena le taimi sa e nofo taofia ai e faatalitali le faaiuga o le mataupu lenei. Ua e malamalama i le faaiuga o le mataupu lenei. (defendant indicated he understood).
11. E te fia oo i le tulaga lea ua oo iai Filipo Pope? (defendant said no). A’o le a le mea e te pipii ai i ituaiga tagata faapela? E faaletonu lou mafaufau? (Defendant said no). Aua a e pipii i ituaiga la o lou iuga foi le la. E amata i le nofo i le falepuipui mo se taimi muamua ma e alu atu ai lava faapena. Ona alu ai a laia o lou olaga o le talepe o le fale o isi tagata ma e alu ave a latou mea ma maua oe ma ave oe i le falepuipui. E a o le ituaiga olaga lena o lea e te fia agai iai? (Defendant said no). E sili ona sui au amio. Aua a le toe faasa’osa’o o lou olaga e le mafai e seisi o matou na fai a’o oe lava. Aua poo le a le matou fautua atu ia oe ae e le loto e fai ia e maimau le taimi. Ae a e loto e fai e sili ona amata i le mataupu lenei ma le avanoa lea o le a tuu atu ia oe i le asō.
12. E ala ona tuu atu e le faamasinoga le avanoa ia oe Pope oute manumanu i lou soifuaga o na e le’i taitai lou olaga. Faatoa 17 ou tausaga, e lei taitai lou olaga. O lea foi e aumai e le lipoti a le ofisa faanofo vaavaaia e lelei le talaaga o lou soifuaga. E lelei lou aiga, lelei lou siosiomaga e te ola mai ai. O lea foi e aumai le tusi talosaga mai le tou ekalesia faapena foi le pulenuu. E taua lelei lava lau susuga i a latou tusi. Ia ma le tou aiga foi o lea e naunau mai i lou mataupu. O auai i le asō lou tuaa poo lou tinā? (defendant said yes).
13. Ia o lea e i e tapuai lau mataupu. Ou te iloa foi e leai se manao a le tina ma tama e ave oe i le falepuipui aua e te alu atu o e feololo e te toe te’a mai tua ua matuai leaga lava aua na’o tagata leaga la e falepuipui. Sa taofia oe i le mataupu lea i se taimi? (defendant said yes). O le a le umi na taofia ai oe? (Defendant said one month and one week). O fea le mea sa taofia ai oe? (Tafaigata). E a o se nofoaga manaia? (Defendant said no). O se nofoaga e te fia nofo ai? (Defendant said no). Ia aua le toe faia se mea faapea. Aua o tagata e faia mea ma solitulafono faapea o latou nofoaga la e o e nofonofo ai ma mafaufau i le lumanai o le latou olaga. Usitai i tuutuuga lea o le a tuu atu ia oe ma faaoga lelei le avanoa lea laa tuu atu ia oe e le faamasinoga ua e iloa? Aua a e le faaaogaina e tasi a le avanoa e tuu atu. A le faaaogaina le avanoa lea e tuu atu ia oe. Ia e toe aumai loa oe i se mataupu faapea Pope ese loa le tulaga o le a oo iai lou olaga. Ua e malamalama? (defendant indicated he understood).
14. The record should note that I have considered the factors in this young mans favour namely his good pre-sentence report which outlines fully his background. He is only 17 years of age he is still young. He is well spoken of by his bishop and his pulenuu. And I note that the village council has penalised him for this particular matter. The village council penalty was substantial. It also appears and I accept that his parents have apologised to the complainant and the record should reflect that they are present in court to support him in his court case.
15. I disregard his previous appearance for actual bodily harm in 2011 and treat him as a first offender for the purposes of this offence of burglary and theft. I have warned the defendant in terms that I am sure he understands of the consequences of his next appearance in court. As it is also apparent from the circumstances as outlined in the probation report that he may have been led into this crime by the older more experienced criminal offender his co-defendant plus the fact that he was drunk at the time having been drinking Russian vodka with his co-defendant, the defendant would do well to stay away from company like that. Putting all these factors together I do not propose to impose a term of imprisonment on this defendant for this particular matter.
16. The defendant will accordingly be convicted and placed on supervision under the probation office for a period of 18 months on the following special conditions; you will undertake 50 hours community service per charge which means a total of 150 hours. Secondly he is to stay away from his co-defendant or any other people directed by the probation office. You should attend all rehabilitation programs as required by the office. He is to live only where approved by the office. He is to continue with his schooling. He is to be subject to a curfew from 7:000 pm to 6:00 am everyday. The only exception to that is if he goes somewhere with his parents or one of them on an appropriate errand. He is not to go near the store involved in this matter. Lastly he is not to consume any alcohol of any kind that includes home brew Pope during the period of his supervision.
17. Ua e malamalama i tuutuuga uma ia o le mataupu Pope? (Defendant indicated he understood). O isi tuutuuga o lou faanofo vaavaaia le tamaitai ofisa lea aua e te alu i se mea pe a maea lau mataupu sei faamalamalama atu i lau susuga ae maise foi le tou aiga. Ae atonu ua manino foi i le tama ma le tina le faaiuga o le mataupu. Ae a iai lava ni mataupu e le’o manino o loo avanoa lava le ofisa faanofo vaavaaia tou te feutagai ma e taumafai foi le ofisa e fesoasoani atu i le taulealea. Faaaoga faalelei le avanoa lea ua tuu atu ia oe Pope. Aua a leai o lea ua uma ona ta’u atu ia oe lou iuga. Ua malamalama? (Defendant said yes).
    

JUSTICE NELSON