SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tufuga [2015] WSSC 32

Case name: 	Police v Tufuga	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 32	
		
Decision date: 	30 January 2015	
		
Parties: 	Police (prosecution)
Easter Tufuga (defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 	S3679/14, S3680/14	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Vaai	
		
On appeal from:	-	
		
Order:	For each offence, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 3 months imprisonment to be served concurrently.

Representation: 	L Suá-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person	
		
Catchwords: 	Fraud- forged-mitigating circumstances-rehabilitation- sentence	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:	

	P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:	

EASTER TUFUGA female of Vaitele and Neiafu
Defendant

Counsel:	
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Defendant in Person

Sentence:	30 January 2015

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E
1. 	Defendant, you appear before me for sentence on two charges, one of fraud and one of theft as a servant.  For each offence you are liable to a term of imprisonment of 10 years.  You were employed by the law firm of Schuster Betham Annandale in January 2013 and in August of the following year you committed these offences.  You forged the signature of one of the partners of the law firm for a significant amount of $25,000 and you cashed it at the bank.  
2. 	The prosecution have properly asked the Court for a term of imprisonment because that is the normal punishment that this Court imposes for this type of offence because this offence is on the rise and the amount involved is significant.  You have obviously betrayed the trust that was placed in you by your employer to handle the payroll and employer’s accounts and other administration duties.  In a very short time that you were employed you decided to commit the offence.  
3. 	The purpose of the sentence that the Court has to impose is to hold you accountable for your actions and because of your young age the Court should also consider rehabilitation.  In other words, the sentence to be imposed on you would have been different if you were an adult.
4. 	You come from a very good background with prospect of higher education but that prospect came to a stop through the need for you to assist to look after your parents.  I have also before me the probation report that was prepared as well as the testimonies attached to the report.  I also accept that you are genuinely remorseful and that all the monies that have been stolen have been repaid but this Court has said on so many times that a term of imprisonment should be imposed unless there are special circumstances and in this case I find no special circumstances, that is because it was premeditated and the amount involved was significant but I will not accept what the prosecution has recommended that I look at 5 years imprisonment.  
5. 	Because of your young age and all the mitigating circumstances I have indicated I will consider 3 years as a starting point.  For your early guilty plea, I will deduct 12 months.  For your genuine remorse and previous good character, I will deduct another 9 months.
6. 	For each offence, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 3 months imprisonment to be served concurrently.

JUSTICE VAAI