IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Stowers [2020] WSSC 103 (24 August 2020)

Case name: 	Police v Stowers	
		
Citation: 	[2020] WSSC 103	
		
Decision date: 	24 August 2020	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) v WINNIENORA STOWERS, female of Aleisa (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	For all these charges the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ supervision.	
		
Representation: 	A. Matalasi & D.J Fong for Prosecution
M. Tuimalealiifano for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 	Forgery – using a forged document – causing loss by deception – first offender – supervision term imposed.	
		
Words and phrases:	“defendant made full reparation”	
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 172(1)(a); 172(1)(d); 173(b); 173(c); 193(b); 194(2); 195(1).	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution 

AND:

WINNIENORA STOWERS, female of Aleisa

Defendant

Counsel:	A Matalasi & D.J Fong for Prosecution
		M Tuimalealiifano for the Defendant

Sentence:	24 August 2020

sentencing of Tuatagaloa J

1. 	The defendant appears for sentencing having entered guilty pleas to: 
(a) 	Three (x3) counts of forgery which carries maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;
(b) 	Three (x3) counts of using forged document which carries maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment;
(c) 	Two (x2) counts of causing loss by deception which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment; and
(d) 	One count of causing loss by deception which carries maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment and
(e) 	All the charges are interrelated.  The defendant carried out these offences on the following days:
(i) 	On 30 May 2019 at Tanumapua, the defendant forged the signature of the account holder and used to pay for her shopping at Ene’s Supermarket to the value of $315.00;
(ii) 	On 01 June 2019 at Vaitele-uta, the defendant forged the signature of the account holder of the same account on a cheque used to pay for her shopping at Fia’s Shop to the value of $900.00;
(iii) 	On 12 June 2019 the defendant again forged the signature of the account holder of the same account on a cheque used to pay for transportation to the value of $250.00.
2. 	All cheques ‘bounced’ when they were presented by these people to the BSP Bank.
3. 	The defendant accordingly in the pre-sentence report was in relationship with the victim. 
4. 	The victim is a 64 year old male of Laulii, married with four (4) children.  The defendant herself is 29 years’ old of Aleisa with three (3) children.
5. 	The Prosecution seeks for a custodial sentence.  The aggravating factors of breach of trust and deceit identified by the Prosecution are inherent in any dishonest offending and where there is a personal or employment relationship between the defendant and victim.   The offending of forgery is always pre-meditated because you are signing someone else’s name without the knowledge of that person and there is always a sinister or dishonest reason why one does it.  This case is no different. 
6. 	To assess the defendant’s level of culpability the Court looks at how many times the offending was carried out, the impact on the complainant (the person who owns the cheque account) and any other victims involved. 
7. 	In the present case, there was no financial loss on the victim who owns the cheque account because the cheques were not processed as they ‘bounced’ when they were presented to the BSP Bank.  It is the other victims – the owners of the shops where the defendant shopped and the taxi services she used for transportation that were at a ‘loss’.
8. 	If anything, the only impact on the owner of the cheque account would probably be to his reputation and the embarrassment the victim endured when he knew about the cheques bouncing.
9. 	Prosecution submits that a custodial sentence is appropriate given the prevalence of this type of offending, and that a custodial sentence would be more appropriate as deterrent. 
10. 	This offending (and others) despite custodial sentences imposed are still happening. As I have explained before, this offending is no different from other offences of similar nature.
11. 	Defence counsel has advised the Court that the defendant has made full reparation in cash to the victims by paying back the full amounts owed to the victims due to the cheques bouncing. 
12. 	The complainant or owner of the account that the cheque book is linked to appeared and advised the Court that the matter has been resolved and that the defendant and her mother apologized to him and that he accepted their apology.  He was also satisfied that the defendant was able to fully compensate the three victims for their goods and services provided.  He asked for his complaint to be withdrawn.
13. 	The defendant is a first offender and has pleaded guilty to all the charges.  It seemed from the pre-sentence report that there is more between the defendant and the victim than what has been disclosed. 
14. 	As I have always emphasized, each defendant is to be sentenced accordingly to the circumstances of the offences carried out.  Taking into account the circumstances of this offending and what has taken place and disclosed to the Court, a custodial sentence is not appropriate.  For all these charges the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ supervision. 
JUSTICE TUATAGALOA