SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Paulo [2017] WSSC 111

Case name: 	Police v Paulo	
		
Citation: 	[2017] WSSC 111	
		
Decision date: 	08 August 2017	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) AND ANTONINA PAMATA PAULO also known as PAMATA PAULO PIPI SALU female of Salailua and Salelologa Savaii. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	24 & 25 July 2017	
		
File number(s): 	S3053/16, S3055/16, S3056/16, S3057/16, S3058/16, S3054/16	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	In respect of these five charges you have been found guilty of, convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. The time you spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted. 	
		
Representation: 	L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	-theft as a servant – large scale systematic theft - incriminating admissions - written confessions of guilt - satisfied beyond reasonable doubt – found guilty -  lack of remorse - gesture of general leniency – convicted and sentenced.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	ANTONINA PAMATA PAULO also known as PAMATA PAULO PIPI SALU female of Salailua and Salelologa Savaii.
Defendant

Counsel:	
Ms L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Hearing:	24 & 25 July 2017

Sentence:	08 August 2017

S E N T E N C E
1.	The defendant faces six (6) charges that while employed as a head cashier for Frankies Supermarket Molesi branch in Salelologa she stole a total of $52,481.40 from her employer. 
2.	The prosecution evidence both documentary and oral establishes that at the end of each day the defendant was responsible for counting the cash received by each of the cashiers of the shop in their presence. She was also responsible for filling in the Cash Summary for each cashier and would sign it together with the relevant Cashier verifying the accuracy of the count. The defendant would then compile a Daily Banking Schedule which would be signed off by the Branch Manager Sina Solomona. 
3.	Cash takings for the day were kept locked in the store vault overnight and banked the next day. If over the weekend, banked the next business day.  It was also the defendants responsibility to fill in the relevant Bank Deposit Slip which she would have the Branch Manager sign even though she physically effected the banking.  When she was absent from the premises such as for example if she was late for work or had left the store for an errand the Branch Manager would take over her duties. But ultimately the person responsible for her duties was herself. 
4.	The store also operated as a base for Frankies Company Limited Money Transfer Business which was also under the jurisdiction of the defendant. The evidence of Tavalea Hunt the companys Accounts Officer sent from Headquarters in Apia to investigate this matter was that the store had an operating cash float of $12,000.00 and the Money Transfer $20,000.00.  This was disputed by the defendant but I am satisfied the officer was telling the truth, she has no reason to lie to the court. And a Money Transfer Business would require a substantial operating cash float to service its clientele. 
5.	It was the practice at the store contrary to good financial and accounting procedure to borrow money from the Supermarket cash when necessary in order to supplement the Money Transfer operation. This was done on a regular basis with Head Office approval and the “short banking” would be recorded, usually on the Daily Banking Schedule. Head Office in Apia would subsequently reimburse the store by cheque delivered direct to the shop which the defendant usually signed for. I am satisfied from the documents exhibited that the reimbursement cheques in this matter were personally received by the defendant. 
6.	The defendant was supposed to use these cheques to reimburse the store operation.  The prosecution case is that instead of doing that the defendant misappropriated the money to her own personal use. Particulars of the amounts and dates involved are set out below:
Dates	Sales Amount	Banking Amount	Variance 	
08/06/2016	$15,515.40	$8,650.10	$6865.30	
10/06/16 – 12/06/16	$54,773.70	$32,491.10	$22,282.60	
13/06/2016	$13,374.90	$9,245.80	$4,129.10	
22/07/16 – 24/07/16	$51,033.40	$44,033.40	$7,000.00	
04/08/2016	$15,784.94	$12,162.54	$3,622.40	
05/08/16 – 07/08/16	$54,191.85	$47,609.85	$8,582.00	
			$52,481.40	

7.	After hearing the prosecution witnesses I am satisfied from the evidence of Tavalea and the Branch Manager together with the Cashiers that were called, who were working at the store at the time, that the defendant did over the period of June to August 2016 steal the companys monies as alleged. 
8.	The defendant elected to give evidence and her attempts to lay the blame for this upon her administrative and other inadequacies and at the feet of the Branch Manager are rejected. She made no mention of this to the Police when interviewed by them. And she signed incriminating confessions and made incriminating admissions to the company officers investigating this matter. 
9.	The defendant is an educated young lady having reached Year 13 level according to her testimony and it was clear from her demeanour and answers especially in cross examination that she is quite intelligent. The complainant company obviously shared this view, that is why she was appointed Head Cashier of this branch in Savaii.  She was smart enough to have her boss sign the “short-banked” Deposit Slips even though she deposited the monies in the bank. So that if something went amiss she could always blame Sina, which she tried to do in her oral evidence before the court.  I have no doubt if this was really the case she would have so informed the Police. 
10.	I do not accept she was coerced into making incriminating admissions to the company investigators by their promise that if she repaid the monies the matter would not be referred to the police. That is contrary to the evidence of Rachael Faatiga a company employee who witnessed her written confessions and who said the defendant broke down in front of them and admitted she used the funds to “tafao’. And requested an opportunity for the company to allow her to repay the money.  It is most likely what happened is the defendant lost track of how expensive a habit her “tafao” jaunts had become. 
11.	I do accept however the defendant repaid some $6,000.00 odd tala to the complainant company. This will be taken into account in due course. The one charge I am not satisfied about is S3054/16, because Exhibit “P-5” on page two shows a specific deposit on 20 June 2016 for this short-banking of 09 June 2016.  That one charge is accordingly dismissed. On the remaining five charges I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the defendant stole the funds as alleged totaling $45,616.10. On those charges I find the defendant guilty. 
12.	As to an appropriate sentence the maximum penalty for this kind of offending is 10 years in prison for each charge. Theft as a servant especially by young women in this country seems to be a popular pastime and the court frowns seriously on those involved in such matters. Cases show that the normal penalty is imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting some other treatment. No such exceptional circumstances exist here. 
13.	This is a large scale systematic theft of a significant sum by someone in a trusted position. The gravity of offending is high, the loss to the complainant company except for the $6,000 odd repaid by the defendant was great. 
14.	The maximum penalty by law as I have stated is now 10 years in prison a recognition by Parliament of the seriousness and prevalence of this kind of behaviour. There is no question an imprisonment penalty is required for your matter the only issue is for how long. In determining that the court has considered the applicable principles laid down in the Sentencing Act 2016 and the need for the court to reinforce its message in relation to such offending, not only to young women but to all persons in such a position of trust. 
15.	Prosecution have suggested a start point for sentence of 6 years in prison, I think that is too high I will start sentence at 5 years in prison. From that start point is to be deducted mitigating factors in your favour. The first is for your clean record and good background as outlined in the pre-sentence report including references from your pulenuu and faifeau. For that I make the normal deduction of 6 months, leaves 4 years 6 months. 
16.	As stated post-offending you repaid some $6,000.00 of the money stolen from the complainant. While that is only about 13% of the companies loss it is some attempt by you to make amends and does to the extent of the repayment mitigate the companys loss. I have no doubt you are not in a position to pay more and neither are your parents who told the probation officer as much as they love you they cannot afford to make compensation in this case.  In any event even if the full amount were repaid that would not have saved you from a prison term given the seriousness of the offending. But for the amount you have paid back I will make a 3 month deduction by way of partial restitution, leaves a balance of 4 years and 3 months. 
17.	Had you pleaded guilty at the outset of this trial you would have received a further and substantial deduction from sentence but you chose not to. You defended this matter even though you had paid back some of the monies stolen, you had made oral and written confessions of guilt to the company and even though there was plenty of documentary evidence against you as disclosed by the trial documents. Which you confirmed you had received but said you had left in Savaii when the trial commenced, leading to the court ordering the prosecution to supply you with a replacement set. 
18.	Notwithstanding all this you persisted in your denial of the charges and even after conviction you continued to do so as evidenced by your protestations of innocence to the Probation Office recorded in your pre-sentence report. All this shows a lack of remorse which is why the court cannot accept the apology you expressed yesterday. Which was too little too late. 
19.	However Antonina you are young, your life is not over with this matter.  As a gesture of general leniency I will remove a further 3 months from your sentence, leaving a balance of 4 years in prison. 
20.	In respect of these five charges you have been found guilty of, convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. The time you spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted. 

JUSTICE NELSON