Police v Niue [2010] WSSC 150 (15 September 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

1. LOTOMAU NIUE, male of Tafua and Alamagoto;
2. ETI FUIMAONO, male of Faleasiu and Afega;
3. USUGAFONO ARONA, male of Palisi and Sili.
Defendants

Counsels: Ms R. Titi for prosecution
Defendants unrepresented

Sentence: 15 September 2010

SENTENCE

All these three defendants have pleaded guilty to stealing 47 bags of flour valued at $55 each the property of their then employer, Punjas Samoa Limited a local wholesale company. The total value of the goods stolen is $2,585. The summary of facts from the police which all defendants accept relates that at about 5am on the morning of 6 August this year the three defendants arrived at work well before anyone else. They opened the container wherein flour sacks are stored and unloaded 47 bags. They had access to the compound because Lotomau worked as a delivery person, Eti as a salesman and Usugafono as a stock handler for the company. The company security guard is also said to have been involved in the theft which given the quantity of goods probably also required the use of a lorry for transportation purposes.

The goods were taken to a shop at Motootua and sold by the defendants at the discounted price of $30 each sack and I trust the police have given consideration to whether that particular store owner should be charged with receiving stolen goods not withstanding the fact that the goods were subsequently recovered by the police. The monies from this illicit sale was split up by the gang and as a result they all now face up to 7 years in prison for their actions.

You gentlemen I am sure have heard what I had just said in the previous sentencing this afternoon of Police v Saseve and it applies also to your case. As stated by the court in Police v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21:

"The courts attitude to thefts as a servant is well documented and should be well known to the public by now. Because of the seriousness and because of the prevalence of such offending usually a penalty of imprisonment is imposed. The only time that it is not imposed is if there are exceptional circumstances warranting some other treatment. The reason for such penalties is to not only to deter the offender himself/herself from such future behaviour but also others who may be tempted to follow his/her example."

This is a case of a well planned and organized theft of not 1 or 2 sacks of flour but a large quantity. The defendants had access to the container in question because they were trusted employees of the company. The offending was committed in the early hours of the morning when no one was around and they probably used the company truck to deliver the goods. The degree of criminality is high and there are no exceptional circumstances to save you from prison. The court must follow its normal policy for cases of this nature.

I take into account for all of you that you are first offenders and you have pleaded guilty and saved the courts time and resources, plus the fact that all the goods were recovered by the police and returned to the company so that the nett loss to the company was negligible. It is also in your favour that you did the right thing and apologized to your employer and that has been confirmed by the Probation Office in their reports. I also take into consideration the matters contained in all of your individual reports from the probation office.

Having regard to all these matters each of you will be convicted and sentenced to four (4) months in prison for this offence.

JUSTICE NELSON