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

Police v Alema [2014] WSSC 52 (24 September 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Alema [2014] WSSC 52

Case name: Police v Alema

Citation: [2014] WSSC 52

Decision date: 24 September 2014

Parties: P O L I C E Prosecution A N D SALE ALEMA male of Luatuanuu, Accused

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1686/14

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:
Theft as a servant, sentence

Legislation cited:
Community Justice Act 2008.
Crimes Act 2013s.161 s.161 (e)

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S1686/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

SALE ALEMA male of Luatuanuu
Accused

Counsel:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 24 September 2014

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused appears for sentence on two counts of theft as a servant, contrary to s.161 of the Crimes Act 2013, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment pursuant to s.161 (e) of the Act. To both counts the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. The accused was employed by Coin Save Ltd in its warehouse at Vaiusu-uta and its branch in the Development Bank of Samoa (DBS) building in Apia.
3. At the start of each working day, the accused was among a group of five to ten other workers which was responsible for moving company products from containers to the company warehouse at Vaiusu-uta. At 4:00pm in the afternoon, accused’s group would be transported to the company branch in the DBS building in Apia where they would wait for their shift to end at 5:00pm.
4. In March this year, the accused and two of his co-workers, who have been jointly charged with him but have failed to appear, agreed to assist the accused in stealing company products from their employer. On that day, while the accused and his second co-accused were at their usual task of moving company products from the containers to the warehouse, they stuffed the following items into a bag: five logo signs with a total value of $40, six wheel handles with a total value of $72, five wheel butts with a total value of $100, and four radio connectors with a total value of $180. The total value of these items was $392.
5. The bag was then thrown out through a window of the warehouse to the first co-accused who hid the bag somewhere outside of the warehouse for the accused to pick up after work.
6. After work, the accused picked up the bag from where it had been hidden outside the warehouse and sold its contents. A few days later, he gave the first co-accused $40.
7. Then between 1 and 30 April 2014, while the accused and his second co-accused were at their usual task of moving company products from the containers to the warehouse, the accused took the following items which belonged to his employer: three flower sets with a total value of $504, one dashboard cover valued at $18, and two waist belts with a total value of $14. The total value of these items was $536.
8. The above items were also thrown out through a window of the warehouse to the first co-accused who hid them somewhere outside the warehouse for the accused to collect after work. The accused did collect those items after work and took them with him. The accused’s actions were caught on a security camera in the warehouse. He was apprehended on 24 April and taken to the Faleata Police post where he was cautioned and interviewed. The accused admitted stealing his employer’s properties to the police.

The accused

9. The accused is 24 years old. He is single. It appears from the pre-sentence report that on 15 April 2013 the accused appeared before this Court for sentence on the charge of theft as a servant. He was convicted on that occasion and fined $150 payable within 14 days in default 3 months imprisonment. On 29 May 2013, he appeared before the District Court for sentence on the charge of causing actual bodily harm. On that charge, he was convicted and discharged.
10. The reason given by the accused to the probation service for committing the present offences is that he and his co-accused were overworked and underpaid. This is the same reason given by the accused to the probation service in 2013 when he was sentenced for theft as a servant which he committed while working for a different company.
11. Of the stolen properties, only the two waist belts valued at $14 and the dashboard cover valued at $18 have been recovered. All the other stolen properties have been sold by the accused for which he received a total of $140. As it appears from the pre-sentence report, part of that money was spent to buy two bottles of spirits.

Discussion

12. This is the third time the accused has appeared before the Courts within a period of seventeen months for sentence on criminal offences. On the two previous occasions, the accused was given non-custodial sentences. On the first of those previous occasions, the accused appeared for sentence for theft as a servant. He is again appearing for sentence on the same type of offence. It also appears from the amended summary of facts that he was the initiator of the present offending.
13. A custodial sentence should now be imposed. I will take 6 months as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct 2 months for the early guilty plea. That leaves 4 months.

The result

14. The accused is sentenced to 4 months imprisonment on each of the two counts of theft as a servant. Both sentences to be concurrent. This is to be followed by 6 months supervision pursuant to s.12 of the Community Justice Act 2008.

------------------------------------

CHIEF JUSTICE