Police v Tamilo [2012] WSSC 72 (6 August 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Tamilo [2012] WSSC 72

Case name: Police v Tamilo

Citation: [2012] WSSC 72

Decision date:06 August 2012

Parties:

POLICE v SOSEFINA TAMILO, female of Vaigaga and FAITALA SOONAFAI, male of Vaigaga and Vaitele-fou

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

Defendants unrepresented

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:

SOSEFINA TAMILO, female of Vaigaga
First Defendant

AND:

FAITALA SOONAFAI, male of Vaigaga and Vaitele-fou
Second Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Defendants unrepresented

Sentence: 06 August 2012

SENTENCE

The two defendants in this matter have pleaded guilty to 53 charges of theft as a servant involving a total sum of $10,600.00 stolen in $200.00 lots over the period 01 January 2012 to end July 2012.

The summary of facts which the defendants have admitted states that the first named defendant Sosefina Tamilo is a 19 year old single female of Vaigaga. She works as do many young women of her age to support her family. The second named defendant Faitala Soonafai is a 38 year old male also of Vaigaga he is married and has four children. He also works and supports his family.

At the time of the offending the defendants were employed by Johnny’s Night Club at Vaitele. The first defendant Sosefina was responsible for collecting the entry admission charges from patrons of the club. The second defendant was the club bouncer and responsible for accompanying Sosefina during the collection of money from patrons. The entry charges were supposed to be handed over by Sosefina to her employer. However beginning in January 2012 she started stealing $200 from these monies. She did this on 53 different occasions hence the 53 charges.

The documents before me indicate that Sosefina would share the proceeds of her thefts with her co-defendant Faitala. And that their employer only became aware of the thefts because they were caught going on large shopping sprees using their employers money. The matter was then reported to the police. The defendants were charged they have pleaded guilty to the 53 counts of theft as a servant. Each count carries a 7 year maximum penalty.

The courts policy has long been that because of the seriousness and prevalence of the offence of theft as a servant invariably imprisonment terms will be imposed. For thefts in the $10,000 range sentences for first offenders who have pleaded guilty with no restitution these have varied from no less than 12 months to around 2 years in prison.

In this case the defendant Sosefina is a first offender she has no criminal record. Her co-defendant Faitala does have a criminal record but because it relates to a different kind of offence the court will treat him as a first offender on the offence of theft as a servant.

It is in both your favour that you are first offenders in this matter and you have pleaded guilty and saved the courts time and resources. But this was a systematic theft from your employer. A large amount of money is involved and you have pleaded guilty to 53 charges. You were relied on by your employer to properly deal with the monies that you collected and you breached that trust.

The documents before the court indicate no restitution has been made or attempted by either of you neither has been there even an apology to your former employer. As I have stated the penalty for this kind of offending lies in the 12 month to 2 year range. For your case I will take a mid-point period of 18 months in prison. That in the circumstances is an appropriate term for these offences. You are both convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison as a total sentence for all charges.

JUSTICE NELSON