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

Police v Neemia [2020] WSSC 51 (6 July 2020)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Neemia [2020] WSSC 51

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

ROPETI NEEMIA a.k.a. NEEMIA AFIAFI male of Vaoala and Aele.
Defendant

AND:

IOSEFO OTO male of Manono, Faleasiu and Vaoala.
Second Defendant

Counsel:
L Faasii for prosecution
Defendants unrepresented

Sentence: 06 July 2020

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendants are jointly charged with burglary and theft of a supermarket at Papauta in Apia. The defendant Ropeti Neemia is also charged with possession of marijuana different place different time.
2. The Police summary of facts in relation to the burglary and theft of the supermarket and this summary has been accepted by both defendants: The defendant Iosefo Oto is 25 years of age of Manono, Faleasiu and Vaoala and was at the time of this offending employed by TCB Security at Vaitele. The other defendant Ropeti Neemia is 31 years old a male of Aele and Vaoala.
3. The complainant in this matter is a male of Papauta and China he is the owner of the Best Value Supermarket at Papauta.
4. On Friday, 06 December 2019 between 10:00 and 11:00 at night the defendant Iosefo was on duty as a security guard at the Supermarket. He received a telephone call from the co-defendant and the two of them planned a burglary of the Supermarket. After the Supermarket was closed they went behind the building and found the back door to the bakery open. Ropeti tore the screen wire and entered the building while Iosefo remained outside as a lookout. The items stolen were some $2,800.00 in cash, a quantity of Pall Mall cigarettes phone cards and one mobile cellphone; total value of everything stolen $7,996.00. The offending was only discovered by the owner of the shop the next day when he viewed the footage on the security cameras and saw what had occurred.
5. The matter was reported to the police and defendants were apprehended and charged. When their case was called for mention the defendants pleaded guilty. The defendant Iosefo has a clean police record but Ropeti has previous convictions; previous convictions which he has accepted for the same kind of offending.
6. Clearly this is large planned theft of a shop where Iosefo worked as a security guard. The more experienced Ropeti who has previous convictions for similar offending was the one who entered the shop and gave effect to their plan. While he was inside committing the offence Iosefo his co-offender was outside keeping watch.
7. The maximum penalty for burglary is ten (10) years in prison and for theft of this kind seven (7) years. In this case an imprisonment penalty is required for both offenders because of the prevalence of this kind of offending. And to make the point that the community rejects this kind of behaviour. The sentence should also convey to Iosefo and Ropeti a deterrent message for the future. And to tell them if they do this sort of thing they will end up in only one place. And to tell other young men that if you take the easy way in life and steal other people’s property for a living there is no future.
8. I will deal firstly with you Ropeti as you are the one with previous convictions. You have appeared before the court on this kind of offence as you well know. You have been given chances Ropeti but you have failed to make use of them. A strong deterrent sentence for you is now necessary.
9. I do not accept the start point advocated in the prosecution submission. The appropriate start point for sentence considering all the circumstances is four (4) years in prison, uplifted by two (2) years to reflect your bad record. A start point of six (6) years but you are eligible for a deduction for your guilty plea. For that I will deduct one quarter of the term that is one and a half (1½) years, leaves four and a half (4½) years in prison.
10. I recall that your mother also made a talosaga on your behalf when this matter was last called, a mother’s petition must be given compassionate treatment. For that I will deduct six (6) months, leaves a final sentence of four years in prison.
11. For the crimes of burglary and theft you will be convicted and sentenced to four (4) years in prison. But you’re in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that term.
12. On the other charge of possession of narcotics Police summary of facts says that on the 10 December 2019 Police acted on information and found you at a house at Vaoala. Inside the house you were found in possession of a bag with 4.5 grams of marijuana. It is not a large quantity but there is still a fourteen (14) year maximum penalty for possession of marijuana of any quantity.
13. The maximum penalty show Parliament regards this kind of offending as serious. It is no secret that drug offending is becoming a major problem in our country. And the court must continue to take a firm approach.
14. I take into account in your favour Ropeti that this is your first narcotic offence as well as your guilty plea. In respect of that offence you will be convicted and sentenced to six (6) months in prison and because it is a different offence to the burglary and theft that sentence is cumulative to the burglary and theft.
15. In your case Iosefo you were in a position of trust, you were hired by the Supermarket to guard its premises from thieves. Instead you collaborated with someone else to rob the premises you were hired to protect. And you grossly abused the trust that was given to you by the owners of the Supermarket. You are not the first security guard to come before the court on an offence of theft. Invariably such people are sent to prison because of the seriousness of such behaviour and its consequences to business. And also because it is a gross breach of trust. Apart from the occasional exceptional case this applies even if you are a first offender.
16. Accordingly, for your matter I adopt the same start point as your co-offender Neemia namely four (4) years in prison. But for you there are different deductions because of your background. Unlike Neemia you are a first offender you have a clean record. I have also read your pre-sentence report it is a good report about service to your family and it has a reference from your pulenuu. For those matters you will receive the usual deduction of six (6) months from sentence, leaves three and a half (3½) years.
17. Had there been an apology and had you made some attempt to make restitution to this store there may have been another deduction but according to the pre-sentence report this has not been done. The only other deduction therefore I give you is for your guilty plea which has saved the courts limited time and resources. Also reflects your remorse as stated by you to the court last time this matter was called. For your guilty plea you will get the same deduction as Neemia namely one and half (1½) years from your sentence, leaves two (2) years in prison.
18. On the charge of burglary and theft you will be convicted and sentenced to two (2) years in prison but your remand in custody time to be deducted.
    

JUSTICE NELSON