Police v Stanley [2012] WSSC 90 (8 October 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Stanley [2012] WSSC 90

Case name: Police v Stanley

Citation: [2012] WSSC 90

Decision date: 08 October 2012

Parties:
THE POLICE v ROGER STANLEY, male of Siusega

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
Mr A Su’a for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Police v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

ROGER STANLEY, male of Siusega.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Mr A Su’a for defendant

Sentence: 08 October 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case appears for sentence on one count of theft as a servant. He has pleaded guilty to stealing $1,800 the property of his employer the Ministry of Women Community and Social Development. At the relevant time he held the senior position of ACEO in said Ministry.

The police summary of facts states that he is a 36 year old male of Siusega with the normal family responsibilities. This matter occurred when the Ministry conducted gender training during the week 21 to 24 November 2011. Ironically that training was on governance. The defendant was responsible for delivery of the training and for that purpose he was allocated $4,800 to be utilized for the payment of allowances to participants. The summary states that as per Ministry procedures allowances are not paid to Ministry staff participating in the training. But are strictly for non Ministry participants. That would seem to be a matter of common sense otherwise Ministry staff would be paid not only their normal salary but allowances to attend something that is part of their duties.

The defendant in his capacity as administrator of the funds failed to deal with the funds properly. He went on to divert the sum of $1,800 to Ministry staff members who had participated in the training. And that disbursement included himself. In order to conceal what he had done the defendant in the acquittal for the training reported such monies as paid to non Ministry employees. The defendant told the probation office when he was interviewed that he did this because he wanted to give something extra to his staff with the intention to win their support and boost productivity.

The matter was eventually discovered and reported to the defendants employer. On the 30th of January 2012 the defendant repaid the $1,800 to the Ministry. Looking at the dates of the repayment it would seem that the matter was referred to the police by the Ministry two weeks or so later on or about 17th of February 2012. In other words the defendant repaid it prior to the matter being referred to the police. No doubt as a result of the Ministry investigation into what had happened.

I believe the defendant has heard from the previous sentencing this afternoon the quote from Police v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21 regarding the courts policy in relation to theft as a servant. Where it records that the seriousness and prevalence of this kind of offence means a deterrent sentence of imprisonment is usually imposed. But the sentence in every case must reflect the circumstances of the matter.

In this case one of the most relevant circumstances is that of the $1,800 stolen by the defendant, $1,150 was used by him to pay the unapproved allowances. The staff members involved and the amounts they were paid have been confirmed by a letter dated 27 July 2012 on Ministry letterhead attached to the submissions filed by defendants counsel. That letter is also signed by the relevant employees. It means that the amount kept by the defendant for his own personal use was $650. This was conceded to by the prosecution at the last calling of this matter on 17 September.

The other relevant circumstance that must be considered is that the Public Service Commission as the defendants employer enquired into the matter and in correspondence again attached to counsels submissions confirms that on 01 February 2012 they fined the defendant $1000 for his transgression. This was done again prior to the matter being referred to the police. The correspondence confirming the decision of the Public Service Commission also notes that the second part of the penalty was to issue a final warning to the defendant that any future breaches of the code of conduct would lead to termination of his service. This suggests that notwithstanding what the defendant had done he continued to be in the employ of the Public Service Commission.

The court does not wish to be in any way minimizing the seriousness of what this defendant did. What he did was serious, was quite wrong and amounts to theft because he was not authorized to pay out such allowances. As an educated person and as an ACEO in the second tier of management in the Ministry he should have known better. His intentions may have been good as he expressed to the probation office but as my mother used to tell me “be careful son the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Notwithstanding the prosecution submission I am of the view that imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty to impose on you Mr Stanley. You are a first offender, you have pleaded guilty, you have made full restitution of the $1,800 that you misappropriated and you have already paid a fine to your employer. I trust this experience has been a valuable lesson and while I will deal with you today on the basis of monetary penalties be warned that you do this sort of thing again the treatment will be quite different. Are we clear about those matters Mr Stanley? (defendant indicated he understood).

The defendant will be convicted and ordered to pay the following sums: court costs of $1000, prosecution costs of $500, probation office costs of $100. This total sum of $1,600 is to be paid by 12 noon tomorrow in default the defendant will serve 6 months in prison.

.........................
JUSTICE NELSON