SURPEME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Isaia [2017] WSSC 6

Case name: 	Police v Isaia	
		
Citation: 	[2017] WSSC 6	
		
Decision date: 	24 February 2017	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v FAAFILI ISAIA male of Vaitele-uta and Patamea and SIGIVAO SOLOMONA male of Vaitele-fou and Salelavalu.	
		
Hearing date(s): 	20 February 2017	
		
File number(s): 	S3078/16, S3079/16	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	CHIEF JUSTICE SAPOLU	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. 	The accused Fagafili is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to be followed by attending the 6 week Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou programme conducted by the probation service for his alcohol problem.  This is effectively a concurrent sentence for both the burglary and theft as a servant charges against him.
2. 	The accused Sigivao is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on the joint burglary charge.

Representation: 	L Sua-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person 	
		
Catchwords: 	Sentence – burglary – theft – aggravating features relating to the offending – starting point for sentence	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s.174, s.161	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE Nos: S3078/16, S3079/16

BETWEEN

P  O  L  I  C  E
Prosecution

A  N  D

FAAFILI ISAIA male of Vaitele-uta and Patamea and SIGIVAO SOLOMONA male of Vaitele-fou and Salelavalu.
Accused

Counsel:	L Sua-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	24 February 2017

S EN T E N C E
The charges
3. 	The accused Faafili Isaia a 26 year old male of Vaitele-uta and Sigivao Solomona a 48 year old male of Vaitele-fou appear for sentence on one joint charge of burglary, contrary to s.174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.  Fagafili Isaia also appears for sentence on one individual charge of theft as a servant, contrary to s.161 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment under s.165 (e).  To these charges both accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending 
4. 	According to the prosecution’s summary of facts confirmed by the accused, at the material time the accused were employed at the Twins Supermarket at Vailele, which is the complainant in this matter.  Sigivao was employed as security but it is not clear what work Fagafili was doing.
5. 	On the night of 23 December 2016 between 10:00pm and 11:00pm, Fagafili went to the complainant’s compound and told Sigivao that he is going inside the supermarket to steal some things as he knows a door of the supermarket that is usually not locked.  Fagafili then went inside the supermarket while Sigivao stood outside to keep watch of anyone coming.  Fagafili  entered the supermarket and stole $1,700.  When he came out, he gave $200 to Sigivao.  A few days later both accused were arrested by the police.
The accused Fagafili Isaia
6. 	According to the pre-sentence report on Fagafili, he is single and  he left school at Year 12 when his parents migrated to New Zealand.  His older brother told the probation service that Fagafili is a hardworking member of their family but his weakness is getting drunk which might have caused him to commit the present offences.  Fagafili is a first offender.  He has expressed remorse to the Court for his offending.
The accused Sigivao Solomona
7. 	According to the pre-sentence report on Sigivao, he is single and  he left school at Year 12 due to financial hardship.  He has worked as security for several companies.  His brother told the probation service that Sigivao is an honest and reliable person.  Sigivao told the probation service that the money he received from Fagafili was returned to the police.
Aggravating features and mitigating features 
8. 	In respect of Fagafili, the aggravating features of his offending is the breach of his employer’s trust, the fact that he initiated this offending, and the fact that he gained more financially  from this offending than his co-offender.  The mitigating features relating to Fagafili as offender is the fact that he has been a person of good character prior to this offending and his early guilty plea.
9. 	In respect of Sigivao, the aggravating feature of his offending is that he was at the material time he was employed as a security for the complainant supermarket.  So a high level of trust was placed in him but he breached that trust.  The mitigating feature of his offending is that he returned the money that he received to the police.  So he did not gain from this offending.  The mitigating features relating to Sigivao as offender is the fact that he was a person of good character prior to this offending and his early guilty plea.
Discussion 
10. 	In respect of Fagafili and the aggravating features relating to his offending,  I am of the opinion that a custodial sentence should be imposed to be followed by attending the 6 week Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou programme conducted by the probation service.  I will take a starting point for sentence of 12 months.  For previous good character, I will deduct 2 months.  That leaves 10 months.  I will further deduct 1/3 for his early guilty plea.  That leaves 7 months.
11. 	In respect of Sigivao and the aggravating and mitigating features relating to his offending, I will take a starting point of 10 months imprisonment.  I will deduct 2 months for his previous good conduct.  That leaves 8 months.  I will further deduct 1/3 for his early guilty plea.  That leaves 6 months.
Result 
12. 	The accused Fagafili is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to be followed by attending the 6 week Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou programme conducted by the probation service for his alcohol problem.  This is effectively a concurrent sentence for both the burglary and theft as a servant charges against him.
13. 	The accused Sigivao is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on the joint burglary charge.
 CHIEF JUSTICE