IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Katopau [2024] WSSC 59 (31 July 2024)

Case name: 	Police v Katopau	
		
Citation: 	[2024] WSSC 59	
		
Decision date: 	31 July 2024	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v SIENI IESE KATOPAU, female of Saina Faleata (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	2024-02128	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Fepulea’i A. Roma	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On the one charge of theft as a servant, you are now convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision with the condition that you complete 60 hours of community service under direction of the Probation Service.	
		
Representation: 	L. Matauaina for Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person	
		
Catchwords: 	Theft as a servant – cashier – breach of trust – occurred multiple times – pre-meditation – early guilty plea – part restitution – first offender – apology	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss.161(a) & 165(e).	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

SIENI IESE KATOPAU female of Saina Faleata

Defendant

Counsel:	L. Matauaina for Prosecution
		Defendant in person

Sentence:	31 July 2024

SENTENCE
1. 	You appear for sentence on one charge of theft as a servant which carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. The allegation is that you stole from your former employer KS Mart supermarket various goods and cash of $875, the total value of stolen properties being $1,000.  On the 29th April 2024 when the matter was first called and charge finalised, you entered a not guilty plea.  The matter was then adjourned to today for hearing.  But this morning you vacated your denial and I decided to proceed to sentence instead of further adjourning the matter for the usual prosecution summary, sentencing memorandum and presentence report. 
2. 	From prosecution’s oral summary and the material before me, you were employed by the complainant for a period of about seven months when this matter came up.  Between November 2023 and March 2024 whilst working as a cashier, the offending occurred.  On several occasions you accepted payment from customers for items without barcodes and which could not be scanned and therefore reflected in the system.  But instead of putting that money into the business where it rightly belongs, you treated it as your own.  The total money involved as you admitted is $1,000.
3. 	In subsequent discussion with the business owners, you accepted that sum as owing before commencing repayments which you say amounts to $600.  The complainant on the other hand says you have paid $496 to date, a difference of just over $100.  
4. 	These are the aggravating features of your offending:
(i) 	the breach of trust; 
(ii) 	the offending appears to have occurred a number of occasions over time;  
(iii) 	there was an element of premeditation; 
(iv) 	the impact on the victim including financial loss of   $1,000;
(v) 	the prevalence of theft as a servant cases. 
5. 	On the other hand, I consider in mitigation of penalty these factors: 
(i) 	your guilty plea;
(ii) 	part restitution;
(iii) 	your personal circumstances - you are now 24 years of age and  a mother of two young children, the third and youngest having passed away recently.  You are unemployed and a first offender. 
6. 	For many years the court has generally imposed terms of imprisonment for theft as a servant cases except in exceptional circumstances.  The breach of trust is an important consideration.  Recently as the cases show, more consideration has been given to the amount involved, usually where the amount is less than $1,000 the court will consider a non-custodial sentence.  Your case falls into that category.  The fact that you have apologised and paid half the amount stolen is significantly in your favour.  But whilst the amount is a relevant consideration, the dishonesty involved must never be overlooked.
7. 	I have decided to impose a non-custodial sentence in your case.  It is consistent with previous sentences for similar offending, it should serve both as deterrence and an opportunity for your rehabilitation.  You must use this opportunity and not repeat your conduct.  It is very simple Sieni, do not steal.  That is the law, it follows the eighth of the Ten Commandments.
8. 	On the one charge of theft as a servant, you are now convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision with the condition that you complete 60 hours of community service under direction of the Probation Service. 
 	JUSTICE ROMA