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

Police v Wu [2015] WSSC 262 (6 July 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Wu [2015] WSSC 262

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND

: Wayne Wu, male of Vailele and China
Accused in person

Counsel: L Sio for prosecution
S Wulf for defendant

Sentence: 06 July 2015

Sentence of Justice E M Aitken

1. Mr Wu, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of receiving stolen property both of them on 15 May. The first in time was 31 boxes of turkey wings, four bags of carrots, one box of oranges. A total value of SAT$2659.90 and later that day you received another 30 boxes, this time of chicken pieces, a total value of SAT$1335 so in terms of the monetary value of your dishonest offending, just under SAT$4000.
2. In respect of each charge because of the value of the property received, the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The summary of facts refers to three co-defendants who have yet to be sentenced. In short they were the thieves, they were the people who took the produce from Chan Mow company. You run a business and they approached you and offered to sell you these items, you accepted them and paid money to them for the purchase of the items. That amount was SAT$2300.
3. You have pleaded guilty to receiving the stolen property on the grounds that you were reckless as to whether the goods had been stolen and I perceive on the following basis. I accept that in the past people have approached you after funerals and offered to sell you goods that have been received by them in the course of the funeral service. You have purchased and on-sold those goods, that is not a crime.
4. On this occasion you were asked if you wanted to purchase and on-sell these items you, I will say, vaguely assumed or you proceeded on the basis that they had probably come from a funeral but you plead guilty on the basis that you should have made better inquiry, in other words there may have been some residual amount of suspicion on your part but you failed to follow that up with proper inquiry. Had you done that you might have realized that the goods were actually in fact stolen.
5. So that amounts to recklessness and certainly makes you criminally responsible although it puts your culpability at the lower end of the scale. It is relevant to observe that when the police came to your shop you were very cooperative. You showed them exactly where the goods were and all of the goods have been uplifted by the police so the loss to Chan Mow is limited to the costs of upgrading their security and the general cost that goes with theft from businesses.
6. In terms of sentencing you, the choice is a stark one. I either give you a term of imprisonment or I leave you in the community. There have not been many cases of receiving that have come before the Supreme Court but of the few that have, the Court is making it increasingly clear that receiving is become and increasingly dishonest offence. Receivers are part of the chain that goes from the burglar to the innocent member of the public. Without receivers there would be fewer burglars or thieves and fewer members of the public receiving stolen property.
7. So the Court has always taken the view that receiving is potentially a serious offence and more recently in this Court terms of imprisonment are starting become what might be regarded as the norm. It will always depend on the context - on the circumstances - and here it was dishonest offending, reckless, so lower end of culpability but clearly offending for profit.
8. In terms of your personal circumstances I have regard to these in determining whether or not to impose a term of imprisonment. You are a first offender as you have never appeared before the Courts. You are a hard working young man; 32 years’ old, with three children. Your wife is currently in Pago awaiting the birth of your fourth child. You and your wife run the business together. As noted, you were cooperative with the police and clearly your young family is dependent on you.
9. In the circumstances, Mr Wu, you will on this occasion avoid a term of imprisonment. I will not sentence you to imprisonment and I reach that decision primarily because of your conduct. The recklessness was at the lower end of the scale but since then there has been a prompt guilt plea, a return of the property and cooperation with the police. Had any one of those factors not been present, then the starting point would likely have been imprisonment.
10. In respect of these charges therefore information 1669/15, the first offence in time, you are convicted and fined the sum of SAT$1200, that amounts to one month of profit. In respect of information 1670/15 you are convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within two years - in other words I am suspending the penalty with regards to the second offence for two years. If you do not commit another offence within that time there will be no further penalty. If however you were to commit another offence, particularly a further offence of dishonesty, then you can expect the Court not only to sentence you on that matter but also on this one – and to take on a very harsh line, in other words, further dishonest offending is an invitation to the Court to sentence you to imprisonment.
11. The fine is to be paid within seven days Mr Wu.

____________________
JUSTICE E M AITKEN