THE SUPPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Mateo [2019] WSSC 1

Case name: 	Police v Mateo	
		
Citation: 	[2019] WSSC 1	
		
Decision date: 	17 January 2019	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v MATULINO MATEO male of Vaoala and Laulii	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S1785/18	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	CHIEF JUSTICE 	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each of the burglary and theft charges.
-	He is also convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on the charge of threat to kill, one month imprisonment on the charge of using insulting words, and 4 months imprisonment on the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon.
-	Any time the accused has already spent in custody is to be deducted from that sentence.

Representation: 	L Sua Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords: 	Aggravating features relating to the offending – dangerous weapon guilty at the earliest opportunity –– insulting words – theft, threat to kill –mitigating features relating to the accused as offender – starting point for sentence - sentence	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.174, s.161,s.165 (c) s.188 (a) 
Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s.4 (g), s.25	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

MATULINO MATEO male of Vaoala and Laulii.
Accused

Counsel:	
L Sua Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	17 January 2019

S E N T E N C E
The charges
1. 	The accused appears for sentence on one charge of burglary, contrary to s.174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; one charge of theft, contrary to s.161 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment pursuant to s.165 (c); one charge of threat to kill, contrary to s.188 (a) of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment; one charge of using insulting words, contrary to s.4 (g) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment or 2 penalty units; and one charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, contrary to s.25 of the Ordinance, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment.  To all charges, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending
2. 	According to the prosecution summary of facts accepted by the accused, on 19 November 2018, the accused went to the house where the victim, who is a foreigner, was staying at Tiapapata as tenant, and stole four bottles of wine of a total value of $550.  When the victim returned home in the afternoon, she noticed that her bottles of wine were missing.  She then heard the accused making noise outside the fence of her home.  When she walked to the accused who was holding a bushknife, he threatened to kill her calling out “kill, kill, kefe, kill”.  The victim then rushed back to her house and contacted her landlord for help.  When the landlord arrived with two of his workers, they approached the accused who was walking away.  When one of the landlord’s workers called out to the accused to return, the accused uttered the insulting words “kefe, ou ke le gaoi, kefe”  and continued walking.  The police were contacted and when they arrived they apprehended the accused and took him to the police station for questioning.
The accused
3. 	According to the supplementary pre-sentence report, the accused is 26 years old, single, and works on his family’s plantation at Vaoala.  A family testimonial could not be obtained by the probation service as the accused was not able to provide the contact details of any family member.
4. 	The accused has previous convictions for burglary and theft in December 2015 for which he was convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision and 100 hours of community service.  He was also ordered to attend the Toemanatu rehabilitation programme and the alcohol and drugs programmes with the conditions that he must stay away from Vaoala and Vailima during the duration of his sentence.  The accused complied with his sentence.  When the present offence was committed, the accused had moved back to Vaoala where he works on his family’s plantation.
The aggravating features relating to the offending 
5. 	The following features are aggravating of the accused’s offending:
(a)	home invasion,
(b)	threatening to kill the victim whilst holding a bushknife when the victim approached him,
(c)	uttering insulting words at the victim and at one of her landlord’s workers.
The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender 
6. 	The only mitigating feature relating to the accused as offender is his early guilty plea.
Discussion 
7. 	It is unfortunate that foreigners working or doing business in Samoa are often the victims of burglary and theft offending.  This calls for a deterrent sentence.
8. 	Having regard to the aggravating features of the offending, I will take a starting point for sentence of 9 months.  I will add on 3 months for previous convictions.  That increases the starting point to 12 months.  Three months are deducted for the early guilty plea.  That leaves 9 months. 
Result 
9. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each of the burglary and theft charges.
10. 	He is also convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on the charge of threat to kill, one month imprisonment on the charge of using insulting words, and 4 months imprisonment on the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon.
11. 	Any time the accused has already spent in custody is to be deducted from that sentence.
CHIEF JUSTICE