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

Police v Sioka [2025] WSSC 37 (14 March 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sioka [2025] WSSC 37 (14 March 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

TAU SIOKA male of Faleasiu and Toamua.

Accused

Counsel: L Matauaina for Prosecution
V Lei Sam for the Accused

Date: 14 March 2025

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused was originally jointly charged with a co-accused with eleven (11) counts of theft as a servant. The accused pleaded guilty while his co-accused pleaded not guilty.
2. The Prosecution later amended their charges. The accused now appears to be sentenced on one count of theft as a servant for eight (8) tires committed between 1^st January 2024 and 29^th February 2024 which penalty is maximum 10 years’ imprisonment for each offence.^[1] The total amount of the properties stolen is $2,254.56.
3. The summary of facts says that the accused stole property as follows:
   • The accused at the time of the offending was employed by Ford Hyundai Samoa Ltd. On Saturday, 17 February 2024 the Sales Manager for Hyundai went to the bay wash area to collect vehicle with license plate # 26931 for a customer to test drive but the vehicle was not there and neither were the accused and co-accused. The Sales Manager contacted the accused to ask if he (with co-accused) have taken the vehicle and the accused responded that he was picked up by his father from work. The Sales Manager reviewed the company’s surveillance footage and saw that both the accused and co-accused drove off in the said vehicle. The Sales Manager also saw on the surveillance camera that before driving off in the company owned vehicle the co-accused removed four (4) tires from the company tire shop handed it over to the accused who loaded it on to the vehicle before they drove off.
4. The accused in the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) says that he worked for Ford Hyundai as a car cleaner. His co-accused asked him to help removed the tires from the tire shop to sell for profit. His co-accused would remove the tires from the shop and he helped load it on to the company owned vehicle. The accused in his PSR said that he had only gone twice with the co-accused to sell the tires where he had only received $100 from the co-accused. The PSR alluded to the fact that the co-accused has access to the company tire shop while the accused was a car cleaner who was based at the bay wash area of the company.
5. The accused is a first offender and is of prior good character and had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. There are written testimonials provided that speaks to the accused good character. The accused has apologized to the company and has been confirmed and accepted by management; however, they still leave the matter with the Court. The accused is said to be remorseful for his behaviour. Counsel for the accused seeks the court’s leniency when passing sentence.
6. Counsel for the accused seeks for a non-custodial sentence agreed to by Prosecution.
7. Having a recorded conviction is a penalty in itself. In the circumstances of this particular matter the accused is convicted and sentenced to nine (9) months supervision with the following conditions:
   • To attend Teen Challenge Program; and
   • To serve 50 hours’ community service as directed by Probation.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

^[1] Crimes Act 2013, sections 33, 161 & 165(f).