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

Police v Foeva'a [2025] WSSC 100 (28 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Foeva’a [2025] WSSC 100 (28 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

TETELE FARANI FOEVA’A male of Malie and Vaitele-Uta

Accused

Counsels: Ms. Kolia for Prosecution
Accused appears in Person

Sentence: 28 October 2025

SENTENCE

The Charges

1. You appear for sentence today for two separate charges:
   • (i) Burglary, contrary to section 174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years upon conviction; and
   • (ii) Theft, contrary to section 161 and 165(b) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years upon conviction.

The Offending

2. The Summary of Facts dated 23 September 2025 which you accept state that on 14 May 2025 you went to the victim’s residence, broke the bedroom lock and entered the room without authority. You then stole an iPad belonging to the victim which is valued at ST$1,680.

The Background of the Accused

3. You are a 20-year-old male from Malie and Vaitele- Uta, married with two children. You told the probation office that you left school at year eight and you have since been working in various jobs. You are therefore employed and receive an income to provide and sustain your young family.

The Victim

4. The victim of your offending is your uncle. In his victim impact report he expressed his disappointment in you because of your involvement in the theft of his iPad as well as the fact that you have not properly apologised to him for your actions. Although the iPad was recovered and returned, you changed the settings and he has difficulty accessing the contents which will require spending money to unlock.

Aggravating Features of the Offending

5. The aggravating features of your offending include:
   • (i) The high prevalence of burglary and theft in the community;
   • (ii) Premeditation. You planned to break into your uncle’s room to take the iPad;
   • (iii) Breach of Trust. The victim is your uncle. You took advantage of your access to the house due to your familial relationship; and
   • (iv) The total value of the iPad which you took.
6. The only mitigating feature in respect of your offending is the return of the iPad.

Aggravating Features in respect of the Offender

7. There are no aggravating factors concerning you personally.

Mitigating Factors in respect of the Offender

8. The following mitigating factor apply to you personally:
   • (i) Your age. You are only 20 years old;
   • (ii) You are a first offender and the character references filed on your behalf by the Sao of your family as well as the Bishop of your Church speak to your previous good character;
   • (iii) You did enter an early guilty plea; and
   • (iv) I accept that you have attempted in your own way to apologise to your uncle.

Discussion

9. Burglary and theft in the community is increasing. The courts have often voiced concerns over the prevalence of this type of offending posing a significant threat to the safety and security of families and their property.[1] In our country, the home holds deep cultural and emotional significance. Unlawful entry and theft of property from someone’s residence causes genuine distress and fear. It is exacerbated when the offender is a relative who was trusted with access.
10. You are well aware that your actions have strained your relationship with your uncle and created a sense of distrust between you. What you may have thought as a quick opportunity to earn money or favour from someone else has resulted in a broken relationship with your uncle. This has also brought shame, embarrassment and regret not only to you but also to your wife and family.
11. While such crimes often warrant custodial sentences, there are circumstances where non-custodial options are appropriate.[2] Your matter falls within this category especially in light of your previous good character. I will accept your word and that of your wife and the matai of your family that your actions are out of character. Your mistake should not define your future. You are still young, and you deserve the opportunity to realign your moral compass and choose a better path—one that safeguards your wellbeing and that of your family. What you choose to do from this point forward is critical.
12. It is now your responsibility to rebuild the trust you have lost. Seek support from family members who will support and uplift you, not those who may lead you astray. Learn from this experience, and ensure it is not repeated.
13. In sentencing you today, it is with the purpose of directing you on a better path. Hopefully it will deter you and others from committing this or similar offending whilst at the same time give you hope for a restored chance at life and a better future. Let me be absolutely clear, this opportunity for leniency will not be extended to you again if you reoffend.
14. Considering the circumstance of your offending, the aggravating and mitigating factors, I agree with the recommendation of both the prosecution and probation office that a term of imprisonment is not an appropriate punishment for you and accept that a period of supervision is more suitable.
15. Accordingly, you are convicted for both charges and sentenced to 12 months’ supervision with the following conditions:
    • (i) you are to attend a suitable programme for a minimum of 8 weeks which will be determined by probation; and
    • (ii) you are to carry out 100 hours’ community service.
      

JUSTICE KERSLAKE

^[1] See for example: Police v Faaleleiga [2024] WSSC 103 (7 October 2024) per Clarke J, Police v Sula Siaosi aka Joe Siaosi (Unreported) 02/08/2024 per Nelson J; Police v Ulisone [2024] WSSC 32 per Clarke J; Police v Seumanutafa [2020] WSSC 52) per Nelson J. Police v Eteuati [2025] WSSC 31 per Roma J
^[2] See Police v Ajawas [2013] WSSC 49 per Sapolu CJ, Police v Ieti [2024] WSSC 18 per Roma J; Police v Suisala [2021] WSSC 47 (20 September 2021 per Sapolu CJ; Police v Amituanai [2016] WSSC169 (2 September 2016; Police v Schaafhausen [2017] WSSC 61 (31 March 2017).