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

Police v Maiava [2017] WSSC 39 (4 April 2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Maiava [2017] WSSC 39

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SITOGA MAIAVA female of Utualii and Matautu-tai.
Defendant

Counsel:
V Afoa for prosecution
S Ponifasio for defendant

Sentence: 04 April 2017

SENTENCE

1. The defendant in this case according to the police summary of facts is a 57 year old female of Utualii and Matautu-tai married and was at the relevant time an employee of the Ministry of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The complaining party is the said Ministry.
2. The defendant was the principal officer in the Immigration division of the Ministry and her duties included processing, reviewing and issuing immigration permits. Applications for permits are submitted to the Ministry together with accompanying documentation. The summary relates that between 01 and 31 October 2011 the defendant in her official capacity served a Chinese man named Chen who was applying for a work permit in this country.
3. The fees for a work permit are $600.00 for the business and $1,200.00 for the application, making a total of $1,800.00. Mr Chen did not have all his documents in order but he submitted his application to the defendant anyway and gave the defendant $2,000.00 in cash to pay for the required fees and also a $200.00 cash meaalofa for the defendant. None of these monies were receipted and it appears the defendant kept it for her personal use.
4. She was accordingly charged with theft of $1,800.00 from her employer and issuing a false receipt in another name in order to cover the shortage as well as accepting a $200 bribe. She has pleaded guilty to all those charges and appears today for sentence in relation to same.
5. I can tell you Sitoga that normally the court would view this kind of matter quite seriously. Because public servants stealing money is a matter of great concern and accepting bribes would also be something the court would sternly frown upon. However in your case I note that full restitution has been made and that you resigned shortly after this matter was investigated.
6. And I also note that this dates back to the year 2011, that is 6 years ago. It is very unclear to me why it is taken so long to bring this matter to court. The prosecution have been unable to offer any reasonable explanation. That is the unusual feature of your case and the unusual circumstance that the court must take into consideration.
7. There is a well-known legal maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied.” There is a great deal of truth in that. I therefore do not propose to impose a prison term for what you did and I propose to deal with it by way of a monetary penalty. E mafai ona totogi le sala tupe Sitoga? (Defendant said yes). Defendant has indicated she has the means to pay a monetary penalty.
8. In respect of these matters there are four charges against the defendant. You will be convicted and issued a penalty of $100.00 per charge, that is a sum of $400. 00. In addition to that you will also pay $50.00 Police costs, $50 Probation Office costs, that brings the total up to $500.00. That sum has to be paid by 4:00 o’clock tomorrow in default of payment you will serve one month in prison.
   

JUSTICE NELSON