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

Police v Uaita [2024] WSSC 121 (26 November 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Uaita [2024] WSSC 121 (26 November 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

FAAONEA UAITA, female of Salelologa and Vaipu’a.

Defendant

Counsel: F, Laurence for Prosecution

A. Matalasi for Defendant

Sentence: 26 November 2024

SENTENCE

Charges

1. You appear this morning for sentence on a number of charges - four of theft as a servant, each with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; five of forgery, each with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; and one of obtaining by deception, the maximum penalty for which is 7 years imprisonment.
2. The record shows you entered guilty pleas to all 10 charges when finalised by prosecution on the 29th October 2024.

Offending

3. You were employed by Bluebird Lumber & Hardware company at Savaii, and responsible for sales. The summary which you accept through counsel says that the first incident occurred on the 27th May 2024. You agreed with an aunt who was living in New Zealand that she would wire transfer to you $11,174.37 as deposit for building materials. You would then arrange for the purchase and delivery of materials to her address at Vaipu’a.
4. The same day, you fraudulently generated a tax invoice for a kitchen tap, seven tile borders and one bathroom mirror with a total value of $309.00. You charged the purchase to one customer’s account and took the items to your own home to renovate your kitchen.
5. Two days later on the 29th May, you fraudulently generated a credit note for the above purchase. The noted purported that the items had been returned to the store, and the value of the purchase was refunded to the customer’s account.
6. On the same day, you dishonestly generated another tax invoice for building materials with a total value of $163.30, charged to the same customer’s account. The items were collected and taken to a family at Vaipu’a.
7. Between the 4th and 5th June, you received from your aunt overseas two wire transfers with a total sum of $11,174.37. A month later on the 3rd July she turned up at the company and demanded that you provide the materials she paid for. You told her you would deliver the rest of the materials.
8. Further on the same day, you dishonestly generated a tax invoice charged to another customer’s account for plastic chairs and paint materials with a total value of $2,161.90. Like before, the items were collected and delivered to the same family at Vaipu’a.
9. Between the 1st and 23rd July, you instructed to be taken to Vaipu’a 180 pieces of timber with varying sizes and 50 rebar steel rods, the total value of the materials being $7,250.00. No invoice was generated for the purchase and no payment was made to the company.
10. On the 23rd July, you again fraudulently generated a tax invoice for the purchase of 40 bags of cement with a total value of $1,340.00. You instructed that the items be taken to Vaipu’a. The driver was surprised the delivery was to be made to Vaipu’a when the purchase was charged to the account of a customer at Gataivai. He reported this to the manager and the order was cancelled. Following an investigation, you were arrested on the 5th September 2024.

Victims

11. The first victim is Bluebird Lumber & Hardware Ltd for which you worked for 14 years. In the victim impact report, its general manager explains the impact of your offending, including the loss of its customers’ trust in the company; loss of funds through stolen stock which were never recovered; time and resources committed to the investigation and bringing charges against you; and the added costs of increasing security and staff restructuring. The report says that the loss has not been recovered.
12. The second victim is your relative who sent money from overseas to buy building materials. You admit in the pre-sentence report using that money to repair your vehicle with the intention of paying it back. You ended up supplying her with some of the materials, but fraudulently and dishonestly without payment to the company. In the victim impact report, they confirm that you have apologised and the matter has been settled.

Aggravating Factors

13. I consider the following:
    • (i) breach of trust;
    • (ii) this was multiple offending, in fact the offending occurred on five separate occasions
    • (iii) it involved two victims, a relative and your employer;
    • (iv) it involved significant sums of money - the obtaining by deception charges involved $11,179.37, the theft as a servant charges involved $9,897.20;
    • (v) the impact on the victims as explained earlier;
    • (vi) the prevalence of offending involving dishonesty by employees.

Mitigating Factors

14. I consider
    • (i) your guilty pleas entered at the earliest opportunity;

(ii) your personal circumstances - you are a 36 year old married woman with three young children aged between 1 and 12 years. You have had a good education. You have been the primary caregiver for your elderly mother and three children, whilst your husband through his employment as a sailor on inter island ferries provides financial support. I have read the testimonials and pleas for leniency from Solovi Tuitasi of the LDS Church, Savaii Samoa Stake; Fonoia Eteuati, the pulenuu of Tapaau ma Salelologa; and your husband through the Probation Service. You are a first offender and I accept you are remorseful.

Penalty

15. The general sentencing practice for theft as a servant cases has been that imprisonment terms are imposed except in exceptional circumstances. Prosecution argue that no such circumstances exist in your case to warrant a departure from the practice. They submit that a start point of three and a half years is appropriate. I consider all the authorities they cite in support.
16. Your counsel on the other hand submits your personal circumstances, particularly your role of being the primary caregiver for your elderly mother and three young children are exceptional, that the impact of an imprisonment term on term would be disproportionately severe. I have considered section 6(g) of the Sentencing Act 2016 referred to by counsel, and the authorities relied on.
17. The impacts on your family including your mother and children are as your counsel puts it typical consequences faced by all defendants appearing on serious charges such as the ones you are being sentenced on. These are matters you should have thought long and hard about before you committed the offending. There have been numerous cases in the past involving defendants with similar circumstances as you, where the court has imposed imprisonment. In some, the fact that female defendants were in different stages of pregnancy has not prevented the court from imposing custodial penalties.
18. In the end the court must consider the public interest and prevalence of the offending, the victim’s interests and impact of the offending; and your personal circumstances. In the circumstances of your case, I am not satisfied that a departure from the general sentencing practice is warranted.
19. I adopt three years as the appropriate start point. I make these deductions. For your personal circumstances, I deduct four months. For the references and pleas in support of your character and your first offender status, I deduct four months. For the impact on your elderly mother and young children for whom you have been the primary caregiver, I deduct four months. The remainder is two years. I make a final deduction of eight months for your guilty pleas entered at the earliest opportunity. The end sentence is 16 months.

Result

20. The penalties are as follows:
    • (i) On each of the four charges of theft as a servant, you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment;
    • (ii) On each of the five counts of forgery, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment;
    • (iii) On the one count of obtaining by deception, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. All sentences will be served concurrently.

JUSTICE ROMA