Police v Willie [2011] CKHC 55; CR393.2011 (20 July 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
CRN 393/11

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND

NGAMETUA TUPE TAKAU TUPUNA WILLIE
Defendant

Hearing: 20 July 2011

Counsel: Snr Sgt Hoskings-Tane for Informant
Mr Rasmussen for Defendant

Sentence: 20 July 2011

SENTENCING NOTES OF C NICHOLSON J

[1] Ngametua Tupe Takau Tupuna Willie, you have pleaded guilty to and been convicted of the offence that between the 1st and 31st of March this year ba servant employed byed by Westpac Bank at Rarotonga you stole $450 cash belonging to Westpac. The maximum penalty for that offence is five years imprisonment.
[e facts are that you had been employed by Westpacstpac as a as a bank teller since June 2010 and, therefore, had been working for Westpac for nearly a year. In management suspectspected cash was missing from a till, enquiries revealed that you had taken $450 from a till over which you had control. When interviewed by the Police you immediately admitted that you had taken the cash and you said you had done it because of temptation, peer pressure, and that you needed cash, that you used it to buy food, petrol, liquor and other personal items. You said that what you did was stupid and wrong, and you were very remorseful for your actions and you were very cooperative with the Police. You pleaded guilty at an early stage. Because of what you did Westpac terminated your employment which is standard practice. Westpac acknowledges that you have repaid the $450 to it.

[3] In her submissions for the prosecution Senior Sergeant Ruta Hosking-Tane pointed out that the offence involved a serious breach of trust and submitted that in sentencing it must be brought in mind that you must be made accountable for what you did, and that the sentence should deter you and others for committing similar offences. She accepted, however, that in mitigation you were cooperative, admitted the offence, was very remorseful and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. She also pointed out that it was your first appearance before a Court. The prosecution submitted that an appropriate sentence was an order that you appear for sentence if called on in 12 months.

[4] In his submissions for you your lawyer, Mr Rasmussen, pd out your yout youthful age of 19, that this was your first offence and was very likely to be your last offence, you having realised how foolish you were and h the background of a very supportive family and otherwise gise good character, and realising that you had done wrong.

[5] Mr Rasmussen submitted that amu came from and were supported by a good family circle and that your grandfather was here today and also your mother had come from Australia. He referred to the statement from a bank officer that all the bank wanted was for the money to be repaid. Mr Rasn emphasised your co-opeo-operation with the authorities, your early plea of guilty, and the fact that you were remorseful and had apologised for what you did. He said that it was unlikely that you would re-offend. He pointed out that the Probation Officer in the pre-sentence report recommended a sentence of six months community service and Mr Rasmusubmitted that the appe appropriate sentence was that as suggested by the Police, namely to come up for sentence if called upon, ubmitted that the term should be six months consistent with what had been imposed in previorevious cases and also to give you some flexibility to leave the Cook Islands if you wished to do so after that time. He closed his submissions by saying in all the circumstances you should be given a chance as you deserve it.

[6] The Probation Officer in the pre-sentence report described your family background and the statements of support made for you. In particular the Probation Officer referred to an interview with your grandfather, Mr Isaia Willie, who said that you were a very good boy and a big help to him and your grandmother with work around the property. He described you as a bright person, smart academically. He was deeply saddened and disappointed what you had done as I acce accept you yourself are.

[7] You are a single person and you have not previously been before the Courts. Your family, and grandparents in particular, are very supportive of you because they love you dearly as they do all their grandchildren. The Probation Officer agrees with what your grandparents said, that this offence was completely out of character for you. The Probation Officer considered that a term of supervision would be appropriate and then recommended six months community service.

[8] Normally in cases involving a breach of trust by a servant the Courts impose a term of imprisonment as a deterrent to other persons who might be tempted to abuse a position of trust. However, in the circumstances of this case, particularly because of your clearly otherwise good character, your youthful age, your acceptance of your wrongdoing and the support which you have of your family I consider that imprisonment is not appropriate and that you do indeed deserve a chance.

[9] I accept that six months period for calling up to come up for sentence is appropriate as it is very unlikely that you will do anything within six months, 12 months or indeed in the future to warrant you being brought before the Court again. In the circumstances I confirm the conviction and order that you appear for sentence before the Court if called on in six months after today.

[10] You are given a chance and I hope that you take advantage of this chance and confirm to your family that you are the good person who they all regard you to be.

C Nicholson J

Editorial Note: Derived from the Court’s electronic records and believed to be correct and final.