Police v Taase [2012] WSSC 54 (2 April 2012)

Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Taase [2012] WSSC 54

Case name: Police v Taase

Citation: [2012] WSSC 54

Decision date: 02 April 2012

Parties: Police v Faau Kirisimasi Taase, male of Vaiee Safata and Vailoa, American Samoa

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution, Ms M V Peteru for defendant.

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Informant

AND:

FAAU KIRISIMASI TAASE male of Vaiee Safata and Vailoa, American Samoa.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Ms M V Peteru for defendant.

Sentence: 02 April 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant appears for sentence on one charge of theft as a servant. The police summary of facts relates that he is a 30 year old single male of Safata previously of American Samoa and was at the time of this matter employed by a local supermarket as a live in night guard. The defendant also assisted as a shop clerk as part of his duties.

The summary states that on Monday 01 August 2011 around 11:00 pm at night the defendant accessed his employers stock container and stole goods which he kept for his own personal use. The goods were a mixture of miscellaneous goods of differing value totalling $1,402.00. According to the summary these were loaded by the defendant into a taxi and he travelled to various stores to sell them. One of these stores recognized the defendant as an employee of the company in this matter and reported it to the employer. The owner of the company investigated the matter and discovered the goods missing from the companys stock container. Referred this matter to the police.

The police apprehended the defendant and when he was cautioned and interviewed he admitted to stealing the goods from his employer. It is also noted in the police summary that a search of the defendants home revealed the goods and these were then all returned to the company. As a result the defendant has been charged with one count of theft as a servant to which he has pleaded guilty when the charges against him were finalized.

What is of concern in this particular matter is the fact that the defendant held the position of a security guard. A security guard is the last line of defence of any employer. The degree of trust placed in him is significant. Perhaps much more than any other employee in an operation such as the company in this case had of running a supermarket because he is there to protect the employer from thefts not only from outside but from within the company.

The defendant by his actions blatantly abused that trust. He said he did so because he was ill-treated by his employers wife who swore at him and assaulted him in front of customers. He also said that he did this as a result of unfair treatment of him. A victim impact report has been filed before the court wherein the wife and the employer deny such allegations. As indicated to counsel I do not propose for the purposes of this sentencing to go into who is right and wrong in the matter and in respect of the truth of such allegations. Even if the defendant is correct this does not by any definition justify his actions in stealing from his employer. If he was the subject of such abuse his remedy was to lay a complaint with the police not steal from his employer. The same applies to his complaint about poor wages and bad treatment. If he feels abused by that he should lay a complaint with the Labour Department. Revenge is no justification for stealing. But it certainly can be a powerful motivation.

I have looked at the circumstances of this case carefully. In particular the defendants position as referred to above. I also note what is contained in the probation pre-sentence report that no proper apology has been given to the employer only allegations in an effort to deflect blame. I am also mindful that more and more security guards are being prosecuted for thefts from their employers. This is becoming trendy. I am of the view the message that should be sent to such people must be clear and unambiguous. As a security guard you carry a large degree of responsibility. You abuse that you are likely to be sent to prison. I have come to the conclusion an imprisonment term is required. But the sentence must reflect the mitigating factors that have been highlight by the defendants counsel.

Theft as a servant as indicated in the previous sentencing carries a 7 year maximum penalty. Considering all circumstances of the matter an appropriate start point is 12 months in prison. From that I deduct one-third of sentence being a period of 4 months for the defendants guilty plea. From that I make a further deduction of 2 months for the fact that the defendant is a first offender with a good previous background. For this matter the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison.

JUSTICE NELSON