IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Soonalole [2014] WSSC 189

Case name: 	Police v Soonalole	
		
Citation: 	[2014] WSSC 189	
		
Decision date: 	10 November 2014	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution)
FOLOLE SOONALOLE female of Saina. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	In respect of these 47 charges you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.  Remand in custody time to be deducted.	
		
Representation: 	O Tagaloa for prosecution
T Leavai for defenda	
		
Catchwords: 	-	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	FOLOLE SOONALOLE female of Saina.
Defendant

Counsel:	O Tagaloa for prosecution
T Leavai for defenda
Sentence:	10 November 2014

SENTENCE
1.	This defendant has pleaded guilty to 47 counts of theft as a servant under the Crimes Act 2013.  Each charge carries a maximum penalty under that Act of 10 years imprisonment.  The summary of facts submitted by the police says the defendant is a 22 year old female of Saina married with no children.  She was at the time of these offences employed as a cashier by Frankies Company Limited at the companys Lotopa branch.  
2.	As cashier her job was to scan goods through the cash register and receive payments from customers of the company for these goods.  At the end of the day a supervisor would reconcile the cash in her till against the total sales and ensure that the cash balanced with the sales recorded for that day.  What the defendant did however was that after the customer leaves she would have the cash register issue out a duplicate receipt for the customers purchase and write on that receipt “wrong press”.  This would have the effect of cancelling the purchase from the system which was false because she had already received the purchase monies from the customer.  She would then forge the signature of her supervisor on the receipt signifying that it had been approved by the supervisor.  
3.	On other occasions she print on the duplicate receipt “not enough money” suggesting that payment had not been received in full from the customer for the purchase.  She would then again forge the signature of her supervisor on such receipts, again indicating that the supervisor had approved this.  Eventually the defendant was caught.  The supervisor saw the documents in question and recognized the signatures to be forgeries.  The matter was referred to police leading to the defendants court appearance today after pleading guilty to 47 counts of theft as a servant.  
4.	The amounts involved in these thefts range from $60.00 to one for $3,000.00, making in total $27,209.70 taken over the period 21 November 2013 to 16 January 2014 a period of approximately 2 months.  This again is a large scale systematic theft of employer money and involves thefts on more than one occasion by the defendant.  
5.	There is no question imprisonment is required as a penalty to continue to send the message to young women who are usually the offenders in this kind of case that if you do this you will end up in prison.  
6.	Considering all the circumstances of your matter I accept the prosecution submission a 5 year start point under the new legislation is warranted.  But as your counsel has pointed out there are deductions to be made to that start point.  Firstly, for your guilty plea a ¼ deduction is warranted, noting that your guilty plea was entered when the charges were finally finalized. That is a deduction of 15 months from the start sentence, leaves a balance of 45 months.  You have a good pre-sentence report Folole which details your background and which is supported by character references from your faifeau and pulenuu.  In respect of those matters I will deduct 6 months from the balance of your sentence, leaves 39 months.  The report also attaches a copy of a letter of apology you made to your employer.  Even though your employer has not responded to that I accept it is a further expression of your remorse.  I will deduct 3 months from your balance of sentence to reflect that. 
7.	In respect of these 47 charges you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.  Remand in custody time to be deducted.

JUSTICE NELSON