IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tiatia [2025] WSDC 6 (25 April 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Tiatia	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSDC 6	
		
Decision date: 	25 April 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v ROSEMARY TIATIA aka LOSA aka MATALENA TIATIA (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	District Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Judge Mata’utia Raymond Schuster	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1.	Taking into consideration her guilty plea, first offender status, her relationship with the victim and her son, her rehabilitation with Teen Challenge and her Pastor, as well as her apology and genuine remorse, that she did not benefit from the monies and that most of the monies has been recovered through the motor vehicles bought from it now in the possession of the victim, I convict the defendant and order her to do 200 hours of community work.  	
		
Representation: 	Inspector Ualesi for Prosecution
Mr latu for the Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	The facts, defense counsel’s submissions, prosecution’s submissions, the clinical therapists assessment, aggravating factors, mitigating factors, discussion, conclusion	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s161(1)(a), 165(b)	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Toefiliga Pitolua Fauega Su’a WSSC 11/11/23 (unreported);
Police v Moelata Oloapu WSDC 7/10/16 (unreported)

Summary of decision:		

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A    N    D:

	ROSEMARY TIATIA a.k.a LOSA a.k.a MATALENA TIATIA, female of Falelauniu-tai, Nuu-fou, Vaimoso and Gataivai, Savaii

Defendant

Counsels:		Inspector Ualesi, Police Prosecution
			Mr Latu for the Defendant

Decision on Sentence: 25th April 2025

RESERVED SENTENCING
FACTS 
1. 	This is a case of theft of SAT$200,000 by the defendant from her de-facto husband pursuant to section 161(1)(a) and 165(b) of the Crimes Act 2013.
2. 	The defendant abandoned school at Year 10 whilst at Avele College. At the time, her biological mother had left with a new husband and abandoned the defendant to the care of her maternal grandmother and Aunt who survived on the maternal grandmother’s pension and the aunt’s pancake stall. She is the eldest of 9 children. The defendant moved around wherever her grandmother was to stay. Her Primary School years up to year 4 were spent whilst living at Vaimoso and Years 5 – 8 at Gataivai, Savaii. Her grandmother returned to Vaimoso when the accused was placed at year 9, Avele College but left whilst at year 10 of her own accord. The Clinical Therapists report states that her grandmother and aunt could not afford her school fees.
3. 	She remained at home for an unspecified period caring for her grandmother and doing domestic duties. She later found a job with a local company called Samoa Pacific Liqour owned and operated by the 63 years old complainant, Mr Fu Gen Ma, a Chinese immigrant. It is unknown when she started working there but it appears not long after working she developed a relationship with the owner. After a month of courtship, she became pregnant and they had a son. As of 27th March 2023 the date of the Clinical Therapist report, the child was 9 years old. It appears therefore that the child was born sometime on or about 2014. This also means that the defendant was about 17 years old in 2014 given her date of birth was 6 February 1997 and the complainant was 59. 
4. 	These facts are undisputed and logically inferred from the Summary of Facts (SoF), the Clinical Therapists Report (CTR), the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) and the Victim Impact Report (VIR).
MR LATU’S SUBMISSIONS
5. 	Mr Latu highlighted the vulnerability of the defendant from exploitation and manipulation. This started when she first commenced employment with the complainant at age 17. This would have been about late 2013 or early 2014. It appears not long after the defendant started work she and the complainant entered into an intimate relationship and after a month became pregnant. They remained in a de-facto relationship for about 10 years until the offending came to light. 
6. 	Subsequent to the defendant being charged, Mr Latu submitted that she was made to give up custody and was prohibited access to the child to date of these oral submissions, which was 9th June 2023. However, the Clinical Therapists report states that she is back at work with the complainant 3 days a week and she has used the opportunity to see her son although remotely and under the watchful eye of the complainant.
7. 	In the business, the defendant was made to work seven (7) days a week including holidays without pay except for an allowance to purchase personal items for which she had to provide receipts to the complainant. The constant authoritative nature of the relationship, Mr Latu submits, led to the vulnerability of the defendant where she was be-friended by Tupou Afa into an intimate relationship. 
8. 	According to the Probation Pre-sentence report not disputed by Prosecution, in the course of the affair, Tupou became aware of a large amount of cash hidden by the complainant inside a toilet tank in the business premises. He manoeuvred himself into a position where he was able to convince the defendant to give him SAT$100,000 to buy a Ford Ranger Double cab pickup. As of the date of the oral submissions, the vehicle was impounded by Police.
9. 	Not long after that, Tupou’s wife Julie subsequently got in on the act. Julie convinced the defendant to give her SAT$50,000 to pay lease and purchase stock for her hair salon business at Lotemau Centre. There is a suggestion that at least SAT$15,000 of that cash was a loan. To date, no monies was repaid or recovered from Julie.
PROSECUTIONS SUBMISSIONS
10. 	Inspector Ualesi after highlighting the gravity and seriousness of the offending being on the high end, recommended a conviction and a community and/or supervision based sentence. He asserted the only mitigating factor was the guilty plea despite the apology and Teen Challenge program. Furthermore, he dismissed the Clinical Therapists assessment as “unusual” as a mitigating factor and “insufficient” based on the nature of the offence and the amount stolen. 
11. 	I am indebted to Inspector Ualesi who provided two theft cases where the amounts involved of SAT$2,600 and SAT$1,489 drew imprisonment sentences of six months and 5 months respectively. At the very least, these cases suggest the general approach is custodial sentence of an amount perhaps SAT$1,000 or more with a starting point of five (5) months.
THE CLINICAL THERAPISTS ASSESSMENT
12. 	Ms Moana Solomona, characterised the defendant as having traits of a person subjected to physical and verbal abuse not to mention her difficult childhood. Relevant to this matter, she was introduced early into marital relationship and child rearing at about 17 years old. The relationship became domineering and controlling at the point where the complainant publicly embarrassed her at work and in front of other workers as well as closely monitoring her on her free time and expenses.
13. 	During this vulnerable stage, she was introduced to Tupou via Tupou’s sister, the latter being a friend of the defendant. They started an affair and within a month Tupou started asking and pressuring her for money. This lasted for about seven (7) months. The affair turned sour leading to verbal and physical abuse. It was about the same time the complainant found out about the missing monies that the defendant, after contemplating suicide for some time, confessed.
14. 	Ms Solomona states under the heading Clinical Formation:
	“Ms Tiatia presents with a lack of ability or strength to make decisions on her own without being directed by others. She has limited coping skills, low self-esteem, poor self-image and reliant on others for emotional and economic support. She accepts blame and guilt for violence and abuse against her and present with moderate levels of depression and anxiety.”
AGGRAVATING FACTORS 
15. 	Breach of trust is always an aggravating factor in an employee/employer relationship but even more significant in a family relationship. However, this ‘trust’ seems to be overshadowed by the circumstance that the defendant came upon the monies instead of being shared the knowledge of the monies existence, location and purpose as one would expect of a couple living together with a child or children. 
16. 	The loss is without a doubt extensive and significant to the complainant. The VIR stated that the complainant was experiencing great financial pressure and worry as a consequence that he will not have the money to support his son. He wants his money back or the vehicles purchased from it. He does not want the defendant to go to jail so long as she returns the monies. 
17. 	Theft is a serious offence particularly when you take into account the manner it was conducted and the amount involved. Prosecution submit that the prevalence of this offending requires stiff punishment to deter like-minded people.
18. 	As to the report from the Clinical Therapist specialising in mental health, the prosecution were not persuaded that the grounds submitted were sufficient to mitigate the offending of the defendant.
MITIGATING FACTORS 
19. 	The mitigating factors are that the defendant entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. She is also a first offender. Furthermore, the victim has forgiven the defendant and does not wish for an imprisonment sentence in the Probation report.
20. 	The defendant has done the Teen Challenge program successfully. The reference from her Pastor describes the positive change in her attendance and participation in Church activities. She is remorseful and seeks a second chance to right the wrong in her life.
21. 	The clinical therapists report suggests that the defendant was exposed to an environment over a long period of time where it could be said that she cannot be fully responsible for her unlawful act. This is provided as mitigating factor personal to the offending.
22. 	In this case, there was no violence associated nor any property damaged, no pre-meditation, the defendant did not benefit from any of the monies and the complainant has recovered most of the monies via the vehicles purchased by Tupou that were returned to the victim as conceded by Prosecution.
DISCUSSION 
23. 	At the outset, the amount of monies involved elevates this offending to be categorised as very serious and would warrant a conviction and prison sentence as a matter of policy. The only question that remains would be the length of the prison sentence. The maximum sentence for this offending under section 161(1)(a) is seven (7) years imprisonment. An imprisonment sentence can only be avoided in such a circumstance if there were some compelling and justified factual exception personal to the offending of the defendant.
24. 	I am required as sentencing judge to consider the aggravating and the mitigating factors and weigh the extent of these competing factors in order to arrive at a just and fair sentence for the defendant as well as for the State and public interest. 
25. 	There is in my view no crime that is committed without reason or motive unless the person was compelled without their free will or was not the master of his/her own mind at the time of the commission of the offense. There is always a story to be told but the end result is only that we see at the end – that being the crime committed. 
26. 	In this case, it seems that defendant from a young age of 17 years was faced with the responsibility to provide for her family. She started working for the 58 or 59 years old victim at his supermarket. Being young and impressionable, the victim started a sexual relationship with her of which she became pregnant and had a son in 2014.
27. 	Unfortunately, given the age gap and the immaturity of the defendant, the relationship was described as domineering and manipulative. She would often be exposed to physical, verbal and mental abuse and would submit to the authority that was her de-facto husband. This was experienced first-hand by the Clinical Therapist Ms Solomona whilst conducting the interview at the victim’s workplace.
28. 	The defendant was befriended by Tupou Afa’s wife who operated a hair salon that the defendant was a client. Tupou Afa and his wife are also charged and have entered guilty pleas to the charge of receiving. It appears Tupou Afa manipulated the defendant to give them monetary favours in exchange for their friendship and sexual relationship with Tupou. It started with monies to pay for outstanding lease payments for Tupou’s wife salon and culminated in the purchase of a Ford Ranger and a bus for Tupou with the promise of repayment.
29. 	There was a logical and calculated pattern that was appearing of further manipulation of the defendant. The defendant was vulnerable and desperate for honest friends given her personal dilemma at her own home with the victim. I accept that she was naïve with the view that the monies would be paid back by her new found friends.
30. 	I have observed the defendant and have arrived at the view that she is truly remorseful. That in itself and her unfortunate life in a relationship that was domineering and manipulative will not exonerate her offending eventhough it is clear to me that she was conned by Tupou and his wife.
31. 	I am of the view, despite the sentencing policy as stated above, that the defendant’s personal history and challenges that she has gone through as outlined in the Clinical Therapists report and the Probation Service Pre-Sentence Report is a relevant and exceptional circumstance personal to the defendant in mitigation.
32. 	Taking into consideration her guilty plea, first offender status, her relationship with the victim and her son, her rehabilitation with Teen Challenge and her Pastor, as well as her apology and genuine remorse, that she did not benefit from the monies and that most of the monies has been recovered through the motor vehicles bought from it now in the possession of the victim, I convict the defendant and order her to do 200 hours of community work.  
JUDGE MATA’UTIA RAYMOND SCHUSTER