PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2008 >> [2008] WSSC 106

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

Police v Tiave [2008] WSSC 106 (15 December 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA


BETWEEN:


POLICE
Prosecution


AND:


TIULI TIAVE
male of Siumu and Siusega
Accused in person


Counsel: Ms Faumuina-Tuuga and Ms Su’a for the prosecution
Accused in person


Sentencing Date: 15 December 2008


SENTENCE BY JUSTICE VAAI


The defendant is charged with theft as a servant for which he is liable to 7 years imprisonment.


Sometimes between the 1st and 31st December 2007 the defendant was doing some work at the Methodist Printing Press. A cheque of $537.00 was meant to be made out to the defendant’s employer Arco Chemicals but the defendant requested the Methodist Printing Press to make the cheque payable to the defendant. The defendant used the cheque of $537.00 for himself and not for the company that he worked for and who paid the defendant. The defendant’s employer reported the matter to the police and the defendant was accordingly charged. The defendant entered a guilty plea. On the 17th November the defendant’s employer requested the police to withdraw the charges. The defendant is still employed by Arco Chemicals up to now which is an indication to the court that the defendant is a trustworthy employee of that company. Obviously some arrangements have been made between the defendant and the company for the repayment of the $537.00. Indeed the probation report prepared for the defendant confirms that the defendant has not only apologised to his fellow workers but also to the manager of Arco Chemicals Mr Keil. I therefore accept the recommendation of the probation service that the defendant has shown great remorse and express deepest regrets for his silly actions. I also accept from the summary of facts that the culpability of the defendant here is very minimal.


I am therefore satisfied that a custodial sentence is not necessary here. Given the facts of this case the defendant is asked to come up for sentence within 2 years. You will not be called upon if you remain in good behaviour. You are also asked to pay costs of prosecution of $500 and that is to be paid within 2 months.


JUSTICE VAAI


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2008/106.html