PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

District Court of Samoa
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> District Court of Samoa >> 2019 >> [2019] WSDC 12

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Police v Patu [2019] WSDC 12 (1 November 2019)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Patu [2019] WSDC 12 (01 November 2019)


Case name:
Police v Patu


Citation:


Decision date:
01 November 2019


Parties:
POLICE (Informant) v MAANAIMA PATU, male of Moataa (Defendant)


Hearing date(s):
03 December 2018; 24 July and 6 September 2019


File number(s):



Jurisdiction:
CRIMINAL


Place of delivery:
District Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Judge Mata’utia Raymond Schuster


On appeal from:


Order:
I therefore find that the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all three elements. The accused is guilty of the charge.


Representation:
I. Atoa for the Informant
P. Chang for the Defendant


Catchwords:
Deception – police officer.


Words and phrases:
“forgery of licences and certificates”


Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013, ss. 172; 172(2);
Road Traffic Ordinance 1960, ss. 2; 13; 71(1)(a);


Cases cited:
Browne v. Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67, H.L.


Summary of decision:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA


HELD AT MULINUU


BETWEEN:


P O L I C E


Informant


AND:


MAANAIMA PATU, male of Moataa


Defendant


Presiding Judge: DCJ Schuster


Counsels: Ms Iliganoa Atoa for Prosecution (NPO)
Ms Precious Chang for the Defendant


Hearing: 3 December 2018, 24 July and 6 September 2019
Ruling: 1 November 2019


RESERVED RULING OF DCJ SCHUSTER


  1. The accused is charged that at “.... Apia between the 1st August 2016 and 30th November 2016 with intent to deceive did lend or allow to be used by Tafeaga Silva a warrant of fitness sticker UP number 591 issued under section 13 of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960 for registered vehicle number 9869, the property of Nuu and Sootaga Kilifi of Manunu” which carries a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment.
  2. Section 71(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) states:
  3. A “warrant of fitness” or “warrant” is defined under section 2 of the Act means:
  4. There is no definition of “deception” particular to this section in the Act. However, guidance may be found from the Crimes Act 2013 section 172 which states:
  5. Notwithstanding the meaning of “deception” in section 172(2) of the Crimes Act specifically refers to that section, it appears that the conduct prohibited (false representation orally or by conduct intended to deceive) is not dissimilar as in this circumstance.
  6. In order to find the accused guilty of the charge, the Prosecution must prove:

Facts

  1. The Prosecution called six (6) witnesses: Constable Rudolph Ho Chee, Kauli Kaio (complainant), Tuipea Ale Toomata from Land Transport Authority (LTA), Constable Ioakimo Yandall, Contable Faatonu Leava and Tafeaga Silva. The Defendant elected to give evidence and the only witness for the defense.
  2. The Prosecution’s case is that sometime in September - October 2016, the accused knowingly lend or allow to Tafeaga Silva a warrant of fitness sticker UP #591 (hereinafter referred to as the “Sticker”) with a vehicle registration number 9869 written in ball point pen on the sticker. Tafeaga Silva then used the sticker on his vehicle registration number 16430 believing it to be the property of the accused. The Prosecution further allege that the sticker was the property of Nuu and Sootaga Kilifi of Manunu and that the accused had no authorisation from the owners to make such a representation. Finally, the prosecution assert that the accused knew that the use of the sticker by Tafeaga Silva on his vehicle would deceive the traffic enforcement officers as to the true representation of the sticker details in relation to Tafeaga Silva’s vehicle.
  3. Constable Ho Chee took photographic evidence of the sticker (Exhibits P1(a) and P1(c)) as well as the vehicle and registration number of Tafeaga Silva’s vehicle (Exhibit P1(b)). These were not disputed by the accused counsel.
  4. Kauli Kaio, a 71 years old male of Solaua, Anoamaa testified that he lost his sticker stuck inside his Toyota Corolla registration number 9869 around August 2016 when at an event in front of the Government Building. The sticker was stuck on his vehicle by an LTA representative. Mr Kaio’s evidence was also not disputed by the accused counsel.
  5. Prosecution also called Tuipea Ale Toomata. Tuipea testified of the process by LTA when registering vehicles. His evidence was not disputed by defence counsel offering no cross examination.
  6. Constable Ioakimo Yandall testified that he was on duty on 28 November 2016 in front of the ANZ building and Samoa Post Office when he stopped a Toyota Corolla registration number 16430 with the suspicion that it was not registered for a warrant of fitness. Upon checking the registration number 16430, it was confirmed that the vehicle was not registered and the sticker UP#591 with a vehicle registration number 9869 was not consistent with the vehicle stopped. He questioned the driver who identified himself as Telea Silva, a brother of another police officer Tafeaga Silva. Constable Yandall then called Tafeaga by phone and asked him where he got the sticker for the vehicle now in police custody and Tafeaga told him that he bought the sticker from police officer Maanaima.
  7. Defence Counsel only disputed the fact that Constable Yandall’s report was only made 18 July 2017, almost a year from the date of the alleged offence and that he may have forgotten what happened. Defence Counsel made no specific reference to any specific part of Constable Yandall’s evidence. Constable Yandall confirmed that he remembers what he did in relation to this matter that day.
  8. Constable Faatonu Leava is a male with the Criminal Investigation Division and has had six (6) years of service to the Ministry of Police. He testified that sometime in October 2016, he was on duty in the evening and at the Police station when the accused arrived from attending to one of the matters reported in. It was then that the accused said to them present if anyone wanted to buy his sticker. Constable Leava said no one answered him but noticed that the sticker was new inside a plastic paper bag (page 11 of Transcript):

Wit: o maanaima patu – sa fai mai pe iai sesi o matou e fia faatau lana sticker, ia e leai sesi o matou na tali ai, o lau vaai ile sticker e fou o loo I totonu ole pepa iila, o le sticker lea e mafai foi na aumai tago lava le tagata faapipii. Oute leiloa pen a maua pen a aumai faasolitulafono e le alii leoleo

Pros: o le a le faamatalaga maanaima e uiga ile sticker lea na fai atu ia oe

Wit: pau le tala maanaima iel sticker poo ai sesi o matou e manao I lana sticker e fia faatau, e leai sesi o matou na tali iai

  1. Under cross examination, Constable Leava was referred his written statement dated 10 August 2017. Defence Counsel put to him that there was no reference in his report that the accused came to them and said if there was anyone to buy his sticker. The witness testified there was a reference in his report that “... pau le faamatalaga lea pe iai sesi e fia manao ise sticker mole taavale”. He remembers that the accused said he wanted to sell the sticker to them but has missed putting it in his report.
  2. Ms Chang put to the witness that he must be wrong as to his recollection given his report was over a year from the date of the alleged offence and that all the accused said was whether “... anyone was looking for a sticker”. Constable Leava rejected Ms Chang’s assertion.
  3. The proceeding was adjourned part heard for the prosecution to summons their final witness Tafeaga Silva to 31 January 2019. On that day, Defence Counsel was not ready to proceed having travelled overseas without prior notice of her unavailability. The matter was re-scheduled to 13 March 2019. On that day, Tafeaga Silva was sworn in, 30 years old male of Faleula and Nuu-fou, married with children and unemployed. However, the continuation of the proceedings was discontinued as it was noticed the witness may self-incriminate himself with his testimony in the absence of a warning pursuant to section 50 of the Evidence Act 2015. The witness evidence was struck off the record and the matter adjourned to 12 April 2019 for continuation.
  4. On 12 April 2019, prosecution sought for a warrant to detain the witness Tafeaga Silva having not cooperated with prosecution after a summons to attend court as a witness was served upon him. The court ordered for Mr Silva to attend and his failure to comply will warrant him in contempt and detained to be brought to proceedings. The matter was further adjourned to 24 July 2019 for Mr Silva to comply with orders to attend as a witness for the accused trial.
  5. When the matter commenced 24 July 2019, prosecution had not made any decision as to the issue of privilege for the witness Mr Silva pursuant to section 50 of the Evidence Act 2015. The matter was further adjourned to 6 September 2019 for continuation.
  6. On 6 September 2019, Tafeaga Silva was sworn in and testified that in the month of September 2016 on a day he cannot recall, he was working in the General Policing shift that commenced in the evening and ends in the morning of the following day. He testified that sometime in the evening after 330pm, the accused came to the General Policing Division and asked those present in the shift whether anyone wanted his sticker for a motor vehicle (page 26 & 27 of Transcript):

Pros ia na a lea

Wit: ia mae’a loa le foleni pei na ou taua sa fesiligia ai matou e le alii leoleo sinia pe iai sesi e manao I lana sticker o loo iai e aoga mo taavale, ia taimi lea pei na ou taua lae mate iai ma semeane tonumaipea ma faatonu ile ava ma nisi ia ua le maua

..........

Pros: ete silafia o ai e onaina lea sticker ile taimi na tuuina atu ai

Wit: ia sa faapea mai le alii leoleo sinia o ia e ona le sticker

Pros: o ai le alii sinia lea

Wit: o maanaima

  1. Tafeaga testified present during this time were police officers Faatonu Leava and Semeane Tonumaipea and others but he could not remember. Tafeaga said that no one answered the accused at the time. The next day, Tafeaga asked the accused he wanted the sticker. The accused then left and obtained the sticker and gave it to Tafeaga and received $100 Tala from Tafeaga. Tafeaga testified that the accused asked him for $100. Tafeaga further testified that he believed the accused when he said that it was his sticker he wanted to sell.
  2. Under cross examination, Ms Chang put to Tafeaga that the $100 was for compensation when he asked the accused to take over his shift while he went to sell his car to a man that wanted to buy it. Tafeaga denied this as he was not a senior officer responsible to supervise any shift. Ms Chang further put to Tafeaga that what the accused actually said was whether there was anyone looking for a sticker that was found outside. Tafeaga denied this assertion still.
  3. Ms Chang further put to Tafeaga that the accused never said to give him $100 for the sticker. Tafeaga denied this and Ms Chang referred him to his statement dated 14 September 2016 where Ms Chang pointed out there was no mention in his statement that the accused asked for $100 for the sticker. Tafeaga accepted there was no reference in his statement (page 31 & 32 of Transcript) and conceded he lied as to that part:
    1. ia tagai ifo le parakalafa lona 3, lea amaka le sa ou fai loa iai, o e vaai atu ai

Wit: ia

  1. ia faitau ifo le first sentence gai luma le palakalafa lena

Wit: sa ou fai loa iai pe fia le tau ae lei tali mai lava, ona ou fai loa lea iai, oute manao ai

  1. e sao la e lei fai atu a se maanaima ia oe e amai se selau tala ae aumai se sticker

Wit: sao lelei lau afioga

  1. so na e pepelo mai ia makou gei a tafeaga

Wit: pei na ou fai atu ua fai sina umi ua tau galo foi

  1. ia na fesili lelei atu pe moi lau kala e lei faia sau kala faapena ae e fai mai e leai, na e mautinoa lelei na e fai iai, na fai atu maanaima ia oe e selau tala

Wit: ia pei na ou taua lau afioga ua fai sina umi ua tau galogalo foi

  1. so a fai sina umi e faigofie atu ga e sau pepelo mai ia matou, mea na lea ete fai mai ai

Wit: leai lau afioga

  1. ia a gae toe faigofie na e sau pepelo mai, ua faatolu molimau ga e fai mai e kilia lelei lau kala ua fai atu maanaima e faatau atu le sticker ia oe e selau tala, a tafeaga

Wit: leai lau afioga

  1. ole pepelo mea na a tafeaga

Wit: leai lau afioga

  1. oi e le se pepelo, e le se pepelo mea ga

Wit: ia pei na ou taua ua fai sina umi

  1. tafeaga e faigofie le fesili, e pepelo pe moi le tala na

Wit: e pepelo

  1. Ms Chang further put to Tafeaga that it was inconceivable being a former police officer of five (5) years’ experience that he would think that LTA stickers were transferable and would only mean that he was still lying to the court. Tafeaga responded his belief was genuine. Ms Chang put to Tafeaga that it was he that stole the sticker from Maanaima’s locker rather than Maanaima giving him the sticker. Tafeaga further denied this assertion.
  2. Ms Chang put to Tafeaga that the sticker was not new but already used as in the evidence of Kauli. Tafeaga confirmed his evidence that the sticker was brand new never been used before. Tafeaga also confirmed that he was charged and convicted for the same offence the accused was charged and fined $500.
  3. The accused elected to give evidence. He is a 42 years old male of Moataa, married with children. He has been a Police officer for 20 years until he was terminated in 2018 with a rank of Senior Constable. He had started with Summons section, then CID, Traffic and finally General Policing.
  4. The accused testifies that sometime between end of July beginning of August 2016, he came to work for their shift. After organising the flag raising team, he and Tafeaga proceeded to take the officers who were on duty at the Court House. Upon returning from the Court House that morning, they stopped outside the General Policing Division entry door. As he got out of the passenger seat of the Police van, he saw a sticker on the ground. The accused testified that he picked up the sticker and walked to the front of the vehicle. He met up with Tafeaga and said to him: “leiloa poo ai lea ua pau lana sticker ii” (page 41 of Transcript). As a matter of law, this and other statements of conversations that the accused testified that he had with Tafeaga have been disregarded as having not been put to Tafeaga by his counsel during Tafeaga’s cross examination.
  5. The accused testified that they both walked into the General Policing Division and he asked the lady manning the phones as to whether anyone reported a missing a sticker. It was then that Tafeaga said that he wanted the sticker and took it from the accused. The accused then told the lady manning the phones if someone asks for a sticker it would be in his locker. He then asked Tafeaga to return the sticker but Tafeaga said he wanted the sticker (page 41 of Transcript):

Wit: ia sa ou mauaina le sticker le taimi lea ma ma savali faatasi atu ma tafeaga I totonu ole ofisa, taunuu atu I totonu na o le tasi le teine o iai, teine lea sa ou tofi e vaai le telefoni, sa ou fesili iai pe iai sesi na lipoti atu se sticker o leiloa. Ole taimi lea na fai mai ai loa tafeaga o ia e manao le sticker I totonu ole ofisa, sa fai mai a le alii lea ma tago mai ile sticker ma tago mai iai, ou fai lea ile teine a faapea e sue mai se sticker ia o lea laa tuu totonu o lau kapoti, ou toe fai lea ia tafeaga e aumai le sticker, ae fai mai a e manao ile sticker e iai lana taavale e manao e faaaoga ai, sa ou fai iai e leai se tulaga e mafai ai na ia faaaoga le sticker o na ete vaai atu o na e iai le numera o le taavale I tua o le sticker, o loo tusia ai le numera ole taavale e ona le sticker, ma na pau na ole taavale e mafai na fealuai ai. Ona ou alu loa tuu le sticker I totonu ole tamai ipu malamalama la ei totonu o lau kapoti e tuu ai faamau o lou ofu faigaluega, ae faagasolo galuega o le aso. Ia maea a laia ma manava le sifi le afiafi lea ma agai ai loa ile fale. Peitai ane o le faaiuga ole tausaga, ia sa logoina ai au e le alii leoleo o tafeaga ua fesiligia na ia ele ofisa suesue ole matagaluega leoleo e uiga ile sticker lea sa maua o alu ai lana taavale poo le a sau tala e tatau na fai iai. O iina faatoa ou iloa ai ua leai se sticker ma totonu ole kapoti ma ou alatu loa sue e sao lava ua leai. Sa ou talanoa ilea lii leoleo poo le a le mea ua tago ai fua ave le sticker, mean a ua tupu ai le vevesi o lout ago fua ile sticker, ana e le tago I le sticker e le, o le a la lau tala na fai I leoleo, ae fai mai ua le mautonu ua vili atu le traffic ua suesue atu poo fea na aumai ai le sticker, ou fai atu ilea lii leoleo e fai pea lana faamatalaga la ua fai, ae sei iai se taimi e fesiligia ai au e uiga ile sticker lea ona fai foi lea o sau faamatalaga.

  1. The highlighted part of the accused testimony was disregarded as parts not put to Tafeaga during cross examination in accordance with the rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67, H.L. The accused went on and stated that he placed the sticker in his locker inside a glass cup where he kept his uniform buttons. He forgot about the sticker until towards the end of the year (three or four months later) when Tafeaga approached the accused and told the accused that the Ministry was investigating him (Tafeaga) as to the sticker he used to operate his vehicle on the road. The accused further testified that Tafeaga asked him to explain the situation with the sticker he gave him. That was when the accused checked and noticed the sticker was missing. The accused then questioned Tafeaga as to why he took the sticker and scolded him that this situation would not have arisen if he (Tafeaga) had not taken the sticker. The accused told Tafeaga to make his own statement and he will provide his statement when he is questioned.
  2. As previously alluded, this last evidence from the accused was not put to Tafeaga during cross examination and is also disregarded. The accused had the opportunity to do so through his counsel. It appears the accused’s counsel, who is very experienced and well aware of the Brown and Dunn rule, was not aware of the facts now alleged by the accused as to the above conversation with Tafeaga. This is a crucial piece of testimony that Ms Chang would have identified if she had been instructed and Ms Chang would have used to contradict or discredit Tafeaga’s testimony. That not being the case, I can only draw the inference that this part of the accused testimony was a recent invention or fabrication.
  3. The accused also testified that sometime in July he received $100 from Tafeaga as Tafeaga asked for the accused to take over his shift as he wanted to go see a man who wanted to buy his taxi. Tafeaga returned late close to the end of the working day and handed him the money and thanked him. The accused recalled that Seminare was in their shift that day but not Faatonu. The accused denied that he offered a sticker to any officer who was present that day.
  4. Under cross examination, the accused accepted that he was experienced and knowledgeable with registration of vehicles having been with the Traffic Section for 5 to 6 years. The accused also confirmed that the sticker was brand new still wrapped in plastic. The accused further testified under cross examination that he did not advise his superior that day or days after because he forgot about the sticker.

Role of Judge

  1. Before I begin my consideration of the evidence and the law, it is important that I set out my role in a Judge Alone Trial. I am required to decide whether the essential elements constituting the alleged offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. This is a criminal prosecution. The onus is on the police to prove the elements of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. There is no onus on the defendant to prove or disprove anything. All facts need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, only the elements of the charge.
  3. In this case the defendant has given evidence himself. The fact the defendant gave evidence does not change the onus or standard of proof.
  4. I have considered all of the evidence that has been placed before me in this case. This includes the evidence given on oath and the exhibits.
  5. The evidence that I heard in this case featured various conflicts, and therefore it cannot all be correct. The divergence in the evidence simply does not allow for that to occur. I have looked at all the evidence with the aim of being objective, careful, impartial and dispassionate in my assessment of the evidence.
  6. It has been necessary for me to consider the honesty, reliability and credibility of each witness. I do not have to accept everything that a witness says or reject anything that a witness says. I am entitled to accept and reject parts of what a witness said in their evidence.
  7. I also emphasise that in reaching a decision in a Judge alone trial, it is neither necessary - nor am I required - to articulate findings about every item of the evidence. My role is to determine whether the prosecution has proven the elements of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. In doing that, however, it is necessary for me to resolve some primary disputes over the facts.

Discussion

  1. So far as the first element is concerned, there seems to be no dispute as to the identity of the accused as the witnesses and the accused are familiar with each other in their work place and personal lives. I find therefore that the prosecution has satisfied the first element beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. As to the second element, the question is whether the accused acted in a manner suggesting that he was the owner of the sticker knowing that to be false and proceeded to lend or allow the use of the sticker by Tafeaga Silva? The offending provision does not require to show whether the accused received any benefit or reward. However, it is a relevant fact that goes towards the conduct of the accused in relation to the deception.
  3. As to the evidence particular to this element, there is no dispute as to the sticker itself and as to its ownership. There is also not disputed by the accused that he was in possession of the said sticker as witnessed by Faatonu Leava and Tafeaga Silva inside the General Policing Division during their shift. The accused however disputes that he did not at any point say that it was his sticker and/or offered the sticker for sale or for anyone to use. He further testified that Faatonu was not present during the relevant time. However, this evidence is disregarded on the basis that it was not put to Faatonu during cross examination.
  4. The prosecution witness Faatonu Leava testified that the accused came to them and offered for anyone to buy his sticker: “... sa fai mai pe iai sesi o matou e fia faatau lana sticker, ...” [page 11 Transcript]. Tafeaga Silva also testified that the accused during their shift in the month of September 2016 the accused came and asked: “ia mae’a loa le foleni pei na ou taua sa fesiligia ai matou e le alii leoleo sinia pe iai sesi e manao I lana sticker o loo iai e aoga mo taavale, ia taimi lea pei na ou taua lae mate iai ma semeane tonumaipea ma faatonu ile ava ma nisi ia ua le maua” [page 26 Transcript].
  5. Ms Chang crossed examined Faatonu that his oral testimony was inconsistent with his written statement suggesting that he had fabricated his evidence that the accused offered “... e fia faatau lana sticker ...” as opposed to what was in his statement that the accused asked “... pe e iai sesi e fia manao ise sticker mole taavale”. There is a difference of suggesting to sell and offering the sticker but in essence the accused is charged on either formulation suggesting to own and had authority to part with the sticker.
  6. Ms Chang also put to Tafeaga Silva that he lied in his testimony that the accused never asked him $100 for the sticker contradicting his written statement. Tafeaga accepted that his testimony was not consistent from his written statement made on 14 December 2016 but that what he was testifying to now is the truth and it has been some time since the incident. Ms Chang further put to Tafeaga the fact that he stole the sticker from the accused locker and was also charged and convicted for his part in the same matter shedding doubt on his credibility and truthfulness.
  7. The accused testified that all he said was whether anyone lost a sticker. He then kept the sticker in his locker inside a glass used to keep his uniform buttons and forgot about it until Tafeaga raised the investigation with him sometime towards the end of the year.
  8. The accused elected to give evidence. And upon doing so, I am required to consider that evidence in the same manner as the prosecution witnesses bearing in mind that the onus of proof remains with the prosecution. I find the accused evidence irreconcilable on a logical and reasonable consideration of the evidence starting from the point where the sticker came to be in his possession. It is reasonable to infer that the area where the sticker is alleged to have been found was just outside the General Policing Division and entrance. It is reasonable to infer that it is an area highly concentrated with police officers and civilians passing back and forth. If that be the case, then it would mean anyone could have come across the sticker. This would also suggest that if a person owning had dropped the sticker where the accused alleges he found it, it would not take long for someone to come across it and the owner to come looking for it.
  9. The evidence suggests that no one came looking for the sticker until Tafeaga’s vehicle was stopped by police on 28 November 2016 leading to the charging of the accused.
  10. The undisputed evidence is that the sticker was stolen in front of the Government Building sometime in August 2016. The accused testified that it was late July early August 2016 when he discovered the sticker. Tafeaga testified that it was sometime in September 2016 and Faatonu recalls it was sometime in October 2016. Despite the conflict as to what month the offence falls under, it is not fatal to the prosecution as it is not disputed by the accused he was in possession of the said sticker during his shift in the presence of Tafeaga. The accused testimony to Faatonu not being present is disregarded for the reason given above.
  11. Given the conflict in the evidence, they cannot all be correct. It really therefore comes down to the word of prosecution witnesses against that of the accused as to whether what was said was tantamount to the accused offering to lend or allow the use of the sticker purporting it to be his property or was merely trying to find out who had lost a sticker. It is reasonable to infer and apportion to the accused that he was well aware and familiar with the Traffic process and regulations for registration and stickers pertaining to motor vehicles after 5 to 6 years in the Traffic Division. Ms Chang charged Tafeaga in similar fashion as to Tafeaga’s misguided understanding that the sticker was re-usable or transferrable given his experience as a police officer. However, Tafeaga is not the accused in this matter and his understanding, actions or omissions are irrelevant as to the alleged act of deception against the accused.
  12. Ms Chang submitted that her client was testifying honestly conceding what he should have done was to report the sticker to LTA. However, the honesty of the accused must only be considered not in hindsight but as to the facts at the time of the alleged offence. The truthfulness of his testimony will be considered in totality with all the evidence as a whole.
  13. In considering the credibility of the prosecution witnesses Faatonu and Tafeaga relating to this issue, I find no reason to disbelieve their evidence. It was consistent and corroborated each other even to the specific fact where they both testified that no one answered the accused when he offered the sticker.
  14. I find the accused evidence to be self-preserving starting from the time he suggests he found the sticker. A substantial but crucial part of the accused evidence was disregarded relating to his conversation with Tafeaga after he found the sticker and before he put the sticker in his locker as having violated the rule in Brown and Dunn discussed above. It is reasonable to infer from that the accused did not raise these issues with his counsel and the logical reason behind as to why experienced counsel was unaware and not cross examined Tafeaga accordingly. It can only be reasonably regarded as recent invention by the accused as opposed to be the truth of what had actually happened.
  15. I accept the evidence of Faatonu and Tafeaga that the accused represented that the sticker was his and purported to offer it to anyone who wanted it whether with any benefit to himself or not. The charge does not stand or fall on this latter issue. I also disregard the evidence by the accused that Tafeaga stole the sticker from his locker and it was only during the investigation that he realised that the sticker was missing. The accused reasons for not looking for the owner or reported the sticker to his superior or LTA is because he forgot about the sticker.
  16. Having kept the sticker inside a clear glass where his uniform buttons were kept, the accused would not have forgotten about the sticker if he were using his uniform buttons every day. It would also follow that I do not accept that the accused forgot about sticker for three months in such plain sight.
  17. As to the third element, the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to deceive any person namely the road traffic authorities that such a warrant of fitness sticker was particular to Tafeaga Silva’s vehicle in compliance with the Act knowing it to be false.
  18. The important aspect in the third element is whether the accused intended to deceive any person other than Tafeaga Silva as to the ownership, purpose and use of the sticker. The prosecution called the evidence of Constable Ioakimo Yandall who was the traffic officer on duty on the 28 November 2016. Yandall testified that he stopped a vehicle suspecting that it was not registered with a warrant of fitness to be on the road given the old appearance and condition of the vehicle. Upon questioning the driver Telea Silva, Yandall was told that the vehicle had already been registered and it belongs to Tafeaga Silva.
  19. Yandall noticed that there was a sticker with the number 8 being the month of registration giving the appearance that it had already gone through the LTA registration process. However, as he checked the Police computer system in conjunction with LTA, he was informed that the vehicle number plate 16430 had not been registered but was carrying the registration of the vehicle with the number plate 9869.
  20. It is clear from the evidence that there was no direct communication between the accused and Yandall. However, it can be inferred from the facts given the accused previous experience in the Traffic Section and knowledge of registration of motor vehicles, the accused must have known that the consequence of giving the sticker to Tafeaga to be used on Tefeaga’s vehicle would deceive traffic authorities in believing on sight that Tafeaga’s vehicle had already been registered but in fact was not the case.
  21. The only reason Officer Yandall stopped the vehicle was due to vigilance on his part as to the old appearance of the vehicle. Otherwise, Officer Yandall may very well would not have taken a second glance at the vehicle after noticing that there was a valid sticker.
  22. Ms Chang only cross examined officer Yandall as to his recollection given the time of his report 18 July 2017 to the date of hearing but relating to no specific relevant fact(s).
  23. I therefore find that I have no reason to disregard any part of officer Yandall’s evidence. There was a high likelihood that the sticker which the accused gave to Tafeaga to be used on Tafeaga’s vehicle would have deceived officer Yandall. The accused must have known on the evidence that Tafeaga would use the sticker on his vehicle as testified by Faatonu and Tafega. Furthermore, the accused must have known that the sticker placed on Tafeaga’s vehicle would deceive traffic enforcement authorities believing that Tafeaga’s vehicle was lawfully registered according to provisions of the Act. However, it was officer Yandall’s vigilance and closer inspection that it was found out to be false.

Conclusion

  1. I therefore find that the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all three elements. The accused is guilty of the charge.

JUDGE MATAUTIA RAYMOND SCHUSTER

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSDC/2019/12.html