Police v Uitime [2009] WSSC 92 (20 July 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

PETELO UITIME, male of Sinamoga.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms L. Taimalelagi for the prosecution
Mr LR Schuster for the defendant

Sentence: 20 July 2009

SENTENCE

This defendant appears for sentence on 11 charges of theft as a servant committed while he was employed as a Consumer Loans Officer at the ANZ Bank. The defendants modus operandi was to create fictitious loan transactions in the name of some of his relatives and then he would approve them as loans officer and appropriate the monies to his personal use. The amounts stolen ranged from the lowest of $478.55 to the highest of $3,000.00. These monies were stolen over the March 2008 - February 2009 period and in total the amount stolen was $26,079.08.

The defendant is a first offender who pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity and those matters are in his favour. His counsel also tried to seek leniency from the court on the basis that this country, indeed the whole world is in a time of recession and the defendant was driven to do what he did in order to meet family obligations. I reject that completely as a basis for mitigation. We are all victims of the current global recession and the solution is not to steal from our employers. The solution is to be found in cutting down spendings and economizing not in crime. That is a ridiculous submission but counsel does accept that if imprisonment is necessary a short term such as has been imposed in other cases should be applied. I agree with that submission.

Clearly imprisonment is necessary in keeping with the courts sentencing policy in relation to the offence of theft as a servant of large amounts. And the range is clear from cases cited in the prosecution memorandum. Cases such as Police v Toomalatai [1999] WSSC 23 where a penalty of 1 year was imposed for theft of $15,800.00; Police v Samu [2008] WSSC 2 where the defendant stole amounts ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 totalling $22,700.00, a penalty of 2 years was there imposed; Police v Amani [2008] WSSC 26, 2 years was imposed for theft of $32,000.00; Police v Ah Sang [2009] WSSC 20, the sum of $37,881.30 was involved, a period of 2 years 3 months was imposed; Police v Betham [2009] WSSC 66, 2 years was imposed for theft of $31,243.20.

All those cases involved first offenders who pleaded guilty and no restitution had been made and no prospect of restitution was imminent. Those cases like here involved a breach of trust, they involved well planned and premeditated offending, they involved large amounts. The further aggravating factor in the present case is that the offences were committed over a long period of time, a period of almost twelve months.

As my brother judge said in Ah Sang:

"people who hold positions of trust must realize that large scale misappropriation of funds placed in their trust and care will be dealt with sternly to convey intolerance and denunciation of their conduct. The normal sentence in this type of case where the amount stolen is substantial and the theft extended over a lengthy period of time has been of a custodial nature. Such a sentence is justified here."

The prosecution in this case have sought an imprisonment term of no less than 3 years, I see no justification for that. The penalties in the sort of case I have referred to has been around 2 years, that is an appropriate penalty for your matter.

In respect of all these charges, the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

JUSTICE NELSON