Police v Iefata [2010] WSSC 155 (27 September 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

ALOFA IEFATA @ FEAGIAI IEFATA, male of Lotopue Aleipata.
Defendant

Counsel: F. Vaai and P. Valoia for prosecution
PL. Masepa'u for defendant

Sentence: 27 September 2010

SENTENCE

The defendant is a 25 year old male of Lotopue in Aleipata. At the time of these offences he was employed as a delivery supervisor for the island of Savaii for one of the large wholesale companies operating out of Apia in Upolu. As such he went in the delivery truck to keep an eye on deliveries to customers and was responsible for collecting monies for sales from the said customers and issuing receipts therefore. On 40 separate occasions he sold employers stock but retained payments for the stock and used it for his own personal purposes. The details of these thefts are listed in the 40 theft as a servant charges against the defendant to which he has pleaded guilty. The charges involve varying amounts from the lowest of $804 to the highest of $8,500 odd. These monies were taken over the period January 2008 to March 2009 some 14 months. This was a large and sustained offending and the total amount involved was $140,613.30.

It is clear that the defendant held a significant position in the complainant company. He was responsible for the companys Savaii deliveries. A high degree of trust was accorded him by the company to ensure sales and payments for sales were done properly and correctly and to ensure there was no thieving engaged in by staff under his supervision. It is equally clear that the defendant has grossly abused that trust. The victim impact report states that he was part of a ring involving two females in the accounts division and they were all engaged in defrauding the company and falsely reporting its revenues. Those two young ladies are currently serving terms of imprisonment I am told. The impact this offending has had on the company is enormous particularly during the difficult recession years of 2008 and 2009. If the defendant had not been caught no doubt his activities would have continued.

The courts policy in theft as a servant cases especially those involving significant amounts should be well-known by now to the public. In such cases penalties of imprisonment are usually the only appropriate penalty. The only question for the sentencing judge is the duration. Sentences of imprisonment have been imposed and will continue to be imposed in the courts efforts to try and curb this sort of offending which has become very prevalent in our community. Stealing is wrong, it is against the law of God and is against the law of man and stealing from a trusting employer is even worse.

In Police v Faiga [2008] WSSC 43, theft by a bank employee of 106 - odd thousand tala produced a sentence of 4 years in prison. Two weeks or so ago there was a sentence on a matter involving theft by a Yazaki Payroll Supervisor of almost $300,000 that led to a sentence of 4½ years in prison. In Police v Taala [2005] WSSC 28, the defendant who was a rents manager for the Congregational Christian Church of Samoa stole 237 - odd thousand tala in amounts ranging from $10 to $12,000, his sentence was 4 years imprisonment.

Counsel for the defendant has correctly pointed to certain factors in the defendants favour which should be taken into account in mitigation of penalty. These are his guilty plea, his first offenders status as he has no previous convictions, his previous good character as evidenced by the character references attached to his Probation Office report. Remorse and reconciliation was also advanced by counsel as factors but it is clear from the victim impact report filed by the Attorney Generals Office that no proper apology has been rendered to the complainant company in this matter. And as to remorse it is very easy to say one is sorry but some effort at giving effect to that should be made to demonstrate that is a genuine expression of remorse. There has been no attempt at a proper apology, there has been no attempt at restitution, remorse counts very little for this defendant.

This is a large theft involving a serious breach of trust over a long period of time. A substantial deterrent penalty is required and the penalty must also be reasonably consistent with penalties in like cases that the court has referred to.

Accordingly your sentence is as follows:

In respect of those charges involving amounts of $6,000 upwards you will be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison;

In respect of charges involving amounts between $4,000 and $6,000, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison;

In respect of charges involving amounts between $1,000 and $4,000, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison;

In respect of charges involving less than $1,000 you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison;

all terms will be served concurrently so in effect you will serve 4 years in prison.

JUSTICE NELSON