Police v Kanongataa [2012] WSSC 59 (13 June 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Kanongataa [2012] WSSC 59

Case name: Police v Kanongataa

Citation: [2012] WSSC 59

Decision date: 13 June 2012

Parties:

Police v Thomas Kanongataa, male of Tufusi and Avei Mauigoa male of Vailoa Faleata.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
T Toailoa for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

THOMAS KANONGATAA male of Taufusi.

First Defendant

AND:

AVEI MAUIGOA male of Vailoa Faleata

Second Defendant

Counsel: Ms T Toailoa for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 13 June 2012

SENTENCE

Thomas and Avei appear for sentence on a charge that while they were employed by a local supermarket they stole three rollers of cotton materials to a total value of $972.00 the property of their employer. Gentlemen if this were your first offence the court would have considered imposing a non-custodial penalty on the two of you. But it is not. Both of you have appeared recently in the District Court on serious crimes.

For the defendant Thomas he appeared on charges of armed with a dangerous weapon, throwing stones and wilful damage in 2010 for which he was ordered to undertake 120 hours community service. For the defendant Avei he appeared in 2011 also before the District Court on offences of burglary, found by night, throwing stones and assault for which he was ordered to serve 100 hours of community service.

Both defendants have served their community service hours as ordered by the court. There is no question that the charges they appeared on in view of the large numbers of hours ordered were serious. Community service is now no longer a viable option for these defendants and their probation office reports does not recommend that penalty for them.

These are two young men who have failed to seize the opportunity that the court gave them when they first appeared. Giving them a further chance would not be in the best interests of the community or would be in my view wise for them. The likelihood of their reoffending is in my assessment strong unless some clear deterrent be administered. No stronger deterrent exists than the prison.

I take into account for both of you the circumstances of this offending namely that for this offence you are both first time offenders. You also pleaded guilty and have saved the courts time and resources. The stolen goods have been recovered and returned to your former employer. I also note the value of those goods as stated in the information you pleaded guilty to.

In respect of this matter the defendants will be convicted and ordered to each serve 21 days in prison commencing last Monday 11 June 2012. That imprisonment term is to be followed by a one year supervision period on the normal terms and conditions. I hope this is the last we see of you gentlemen because if you reappear again the sentences will only get worse.

JUSTICE NELSON