Police v Sevao [2010] WSSC 153 (20 September 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

ESETA SEVAO, female of Faleula.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms F. Vaai and Ms P. Valoia for prosecution
Mr T. Patea for defendant

Sentence: 20 September 2010

SENTENCE

This defendant appears for sentence on 18 charges of theft as a servant committed over a three month period in 2009 while she was employed as a delivery supervisor for Chan Mow Wholesale. As supervisor she was responsible for receiving money and issuing receipts for delivery of goods.

Police summary of facts relates that on 18 occasions she received payments from customers for goods issued with the original receipts marked "paid" while she marked the carbon copy of the receipt "unpaid" and proceeded to keep the cash involved. The amounts involved varied from the lowest amount of $160.80 to the highest of $904.40 and totaled to an amount of $6,601.05.

As can be seen from the earlier sentencings this afternoon the courts policy for theft as a servant is of course to impose imprisonment sentences because of the seriousness and prevalence of the offences and looking at similar cases and the comments made in those similar cases some of which have been referred to by prosecution in their submission, a period around the 9 to 12 month range is appropriate for the kind of offending committed by the defendant. And there is no reason why the court should depart from that sentencing range in this case. That is also consistent with the criminality of the defendants offending and the scale thereof and her personal circumstances.

Her counsel did suggest that the court should also regard this as opportunistic type offending rather than a pre-meditated and planned offending and for that reason the court should regard this case differently from other like cases. However I cannot agree with counsels submission because it is clear that the offending carried out by this defendant was deliberate and was engaged in over a three month period namely September, October and November 2009. That cannot be said to be opportunistic and the defendant must have realized exactly what she was doing.

There has also been some discussion as to whether or not the defendant has apologized for this offending as of sentencing. The probation office report indicates that no apology has been made and there is a letter from the complainant company to that effect on file. This sentencing must therefore be processed on the basis that no apology has been made.

As I have stated the range of sentencing that would be applicable to your case is in the 9 to 12 month range. I will take the lower end of that range that of 9 months in prison as the applicable penalty for this case. However in the exercise of a prerogative of mercy as sentencing judge, I take into consideration that you have a 2 month old baby and I would reduce that period from 9 months therefore to 6 months in prison for this matter. That is in respect of each charge but all terms would be served concurrently.

JUSTICE NELSON