SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Siaosi [2012] WSSC 40 

Case name: Police v Siaosi

Citation: [2012] WSSC 40

Decision date: 16 July 2012

Parties: Police and Amelia Diedre Siaosi

Hearing date(s): 19, 20, 21 April 2010, 18, 19, 24 May 2010

File number(s): 

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Vaai

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation: 
Precious Chang and Leinafo Taimalelagi for prosecution 
Rosella Papalii for defendant

Catchwords: 

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:
H.J.Moors v Police (1960 – 1969) WSLR 103

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO.

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

AMELIA DIERRE SIAOSI female of Asaga Savaii and Vaivase-uta
Defendant 

Counsel:	
Precious Chang and Leinafo Taimalelagi for prosecution
Rosella Papalii for defendant
Sentence:	16 July 2012

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E  
Introduction
1.	The defendant was employed by the South Pacific Business Development (SPBD) as a Finance officer.  She has been found guilty of 44 acts of theft as a servant and 44 corresponding acts of forgery.   Those acts of forgery and theft occurred over a relatively short period of time but the total amount stolen was fairly substantial.
2.	A number of methods were involved in the forgery one of which involved creating fake passbooks, filling out the withdrawal slips, forging the customer’s signature on the withdrawal slips and obtaining the General Manager’s approval.  The defendant then withdrew the cash for herself.
3.	Prior to the discovery of the theft and before she voluntarily left the employment of SPBD without telling anyone the defendant discarded the fake passbooks.
4.	Counsel for the defendant in her sentencing submissions reminded the court of the decision of the Samoa Court of Appeal in H.J.Moors v Police (1960 – 1969) WSLR 103 which she addressed in her final submissions on the issue of forgery.  With respect to counsel the facts of that case are totally different and bears no resemble to the fake passbooks and withdrawal slips created by this defendant to facilitate the theft of monies from SPBD.  H.J.Moors v Police concerned a Treasury Department voucher which contained a certificate with the words:
“I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the foregoing account is true and correct in every particular, that the charge is reasonable and that the goods have been received.” 
Mr Moors on behalf of the Marine Department ordered an air conditioner from O.F. Nelson.  He had no authority although he may have thought he had one, to purchase an air conditioner.  O.F. Nelson submitted the voucher to pay for the air conditioner and Mr Moors knew the Marine Department had no vote to pay for the account.  To have the bill paid Mr Moors requisitioned some chain for the same value as the air conditioner, obtained a voucher and signed the certificate to certify payment.  The court held the signature of Mr Moors to the certificate did not convert the voucher into something which purported to be different from what it actually was.  That is, although the certificate contained untrue statements, it was not something which purported to be different from what it actually was.
5.	This is not the first time H.J.Moors v Police has been cited in forgery cases.  The forgery committed by this defendant consisted of creating false documents.  Fake passbooks and withdrawal slips were created to steal monies from the accounts of the customers of SPBD.  In other instances where the customer attended the office of SPBD to withdraw cash, the defendant deliberately altered the amounts in the withdrawal slip after the customer had signed the slip, gave the customer the amount requested and kept the balance for herself.
6.	The forgery employed by this defendant may not qualify to be classified as sophisticated but it nonetheless involved time to detect and the legal process was both time consuming and expensive.  The culture of dishonesty by the defendant was nonetheless well thought out and planned.
7.	The sentence to be imposed is intended to operate as a deterrence to deter the defendant and to warn other like-minded.  Theft as a servant is on the rise.
8.	This 38 year old wife of a pastor has shown no remorse.  Although it will not increase the sentence, she will certainly not be entitled to the benefit she would have been entitled to.  During her testimony on the voir dire hearing she virtually labeled two lawyers and a very senior officer of SPBD who testified for the police as conspirators and liars.
9.	The prosecution suggests a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and cites comparable sentencing decisions in support of its submissions.  It emphasised that the sentence should denounce the conduct, deter the defendant and others, to protect the business community and to hold the defendant liable for her actions.
10.	Given the prevalence of the offending within our community, the premeditation and the methods employed by the defendant, a substantially high commencing point is warranted.  It is also noted that the SPBD will never recover the stolen monies as the defendant has no means to repay it.
11.	Needless to say there has been a grave breach of trust.  Companies and Institutions rely heavily on its employees and officers and expect staff members to work honestly and diligently.
Mitigation
12.	The defendant is aged 38.  She is a first offender and a mother of 3.  She graduated with a Diploma in Accounting in 1998 at the University of the South Pacific.  At the time of the offending she had been with SPBD for four years and a Senior Accounts Clerk.
13.	The only mitigating factor is her first offender status for which the court will reduce the term of imprisonment to be actually served by a period of 12 months for each offence of theft as a servant and of forgery.
Sentence
(i)	On each charge of theft as a servant the defendant is sentenced to 2 ½ years imprisonment to be served concurrently.
(ii)	On each charge of forgery the defendant is sentenced to 2 years imprisonments to be served concurrently.
(iii)	Both sentences for theft and forgery are to be served concurrently.

JUSTICE VAAI