Police v Isaia [2009] WSSC 19 (20 February 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

MORINDA FAAMUAMUA ISAIA female of Moataa and Vaivase-uta
Defendant

Counsel: Ms Faumuina-Tuuga and Ms Titi for the prosecution
Mr Patea for the defendant

Sentencing Date: 20 February 2009

SENTENCE OF VAAI J

The defendant 28 years of age from the village of Moataa is the mother of a 6 year old son. She is living with her elderly parents at Moataa. The parents I am told by the defence counsel are both sick and their mobility restricted due to their medical conditions.

After a defended hearing the defendant was found guilty of three charges of theft as a servant from her previous employer, Yazaki EDS Samoa. The offences were committed on three different occasions between July and September 2006. The total amount stolen was $8,500. Seven years imprisonment is the punishment imposed by the law for those offences. At the time the offences were committed the defendant was responsible for the Licence Rewards System in which she:

(a) she approved which employee would receive the monthly award of $20.

(b) she would then requisition money from the Finance department of her employer for payment of award, and

(c) distribute the $20 awards to the intended recipients.

At the same time she also held other senior, responsible position of supervisor. I find the following to be the aggravating features of the offending.

Aggravating Factors

(1) She was in breach of her position of trust.

(2) Through her offending she denied those workers, much lower down the corporate structure the monetary rewards they were entitled to.

(3) The offending displayed gross dishonesty as well as relatively high level of culpability as there was an element of premeditation.

(4) There has been no effort to pay back the amount of money stolen but I am now been told by counsel that she is prepared to pay the amount of about $4,000 tala.

At the time of the trial she told the court that she was prepared to pay $5,000 tala which has been negotiated at the time. No money has yet been paid.

Mitigating Factors

I find the only mitigating factor is that she is the first offender.

Discussion

1. The pre-sentence report with the attached testimonials from responsible personels and institutions described the defendant as a responsible, trustworthy, reliable and intelligent person.
   
2. The defendant is a solo mother with a 6 year old son and she also has a responsibility to look after her elderly and sick parents.
   
3. Inevitably the court should show mercy but in doing so it should not be inconsistent with the discharge of the public duty of a judicial officer as it may result in public confusion and erodes confidence of the public in the sentencing process.
   
4. There are some cases of breaches of trust when even for a first offender of previous good character, and even when there is a young child to care for, and even when there are sick elderly parents to think about, and even when genuine remorse has been expressed, imprisonment must be ordered. This is such a case.
   

Defence counsel submissions acknowledges that a term of imprisonment is inevitable. A deterrent custodial sentence is warranted. Those in position of trust must expect stern sentences when a breach of trust is intentionally committed for financial gain.

Sentence

Based on the tariffs of sentences submitted by counsels and imposed by the court in the past and taking into account the circumstances surrounding the offending I consider 12 months as the appropriate starting point. For the previous good conduct I deduct 3 months. The defendant is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.

JUSTICE VAAI