Taulapapa v Police [2002] WSSC 24 (29 August 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE

Informant
AND:

PATI TAULAPAPA,

male of Vaitele-uta
Defendant

Counsel: Ms F. Vaai-Hoglund & Ms A. Faasau for prosecution
Defendant appears in person

Sentence: 29 August 2002

SENTENCING REMARKS OF JUSTICE COOPER

Pati, you now appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to three charges of theft as a servant and three charges of forgery.

At the time these offences were committed, you were employed as a bank teller by the Westpac bank. Between April and July 2002, you stole a total of $2,500.57. This was done on three separate occasions where you falsified deposit sheets and took the money for yourself. Once your offending had been discovered full reparation was made by your grandfather and all of the money has been repaid. You have no previous criminal convictions; you are 20 years of age.

The probation report tells me that you come from a supported family that you have had the benefits of a good upbringing and a good education. It will be fair to say that before this offending took place, you were a person who had a promising career ahead of you. That of course has now been destroyed.

I adjourned the sentencing from earlier in the week so that the prosecution could provide me with details of sentencing levels for this type of offending in Samoa. I have now reviewed sentences passed in this court between 1998 and May this year for offending of this sort.

The aggravating features of your case are the fact that there was a significant amount of money involved, and secondly the breach of trust that is implicit in this offending. Employees of banks in particular are required to be absolutely honest. The third aggravating factor is that there were three separate incidents of offending.

On the other hand in your favour it can be said that you have no previous criminal convictions and all the money have been repaid. You have pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for your actions. You have health problems, which will mean that a prison sentence may be harder for you than for other offenders.

I have come to the conclusion that I must impose a sentence of imprisonment upon you. That is to deter this sort of offending and to be even handed, having regard to sentences imposed in other cases. Were it not for those factors in your favour that I have already mentioned, the sentence that I would have passed upon you would have been fifteen (15) months imprisonment. But taking into account those factors that I have identified to which you are entitled to credit, you are now being sentenced on all charges to nine (9) months imprisonment. Those sentences are concurrent, so the total sentence is nine (9) months imprisonment.

JUSTICE COOPER