Police v Migo [2013] WSSC 91 (24 December 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Migo [2013] WSSC 91

Case name: Police v Migo

Citation: [2013] WSSC 91

Decision date: 24 December 2013

Parties:

POLICE (Prosecution) and SEFO SIO MIGO aka SEFO MIKA male of Satuimalufilufi, Samatau and Salelologa

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

S2320/13,S2321/13,S2962/13, S2963/13,S2282/13,S2283/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
F Lagaaia for prosecution

Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:
Sentence, burglary, theft, aggravating and mitigating features

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 (burglary) s.174 (1) (a) (theft) 165 (b)

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NOS: S2320/13,S2321/13,S2962/13,

S2963/13,S2282/13,S2283/13

BETWEEN

POLICE

Prosecution

A N D

SEFO SIO MIGO aka SEFO MIKA male of Satuimalufilufi, Samatau and Salelologa

Accused

Counsel

F Lagaaia for Prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 24 December 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused Sefo Sio Migo appears for sentence on two charges of burglary pursuant to s.174 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013 and two charges of theft pursuant to s.161 of the Act. Each of the burglary charges carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment under s.174(1)(a) and each of the theft charges carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment under s.165 (b) because the total value of the properties stolen in relation to each charge exceeded $1,000. The accused pleaded guilty to all charges at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. At night between 12 and 13 July 2013, the accused and his companions entered a house at Siusega and stole a Panasonic TV valued at NZ$500, a Sony stereo with speakers valued at NZ $1,000, a fishing rod valued at NZ$300, a Panasonic DVD player valued at NZ$200 and a case of corned beef valued at $100. At that time, the owner of the house and the stolen properties had travelled to New Zealand and a neighbor was looking after his house. The total value of these stolen items of property was NZ $2,345.
3. Then the following night between 13 and 14 July 2013, the accused and his companions again entered the same house and stole an electronic iron valued at NZ $25, 3 fine mats valued at $1,200 each, two pairs of rugby shoes valued at NZ $100 a pair, one sharp microwave valued at $300, a toaster valued at $67 and a staple gun valued at NZ $120. The total value of these items of property in Samoan currency was $4,067.
4. The police were able to apprehend the accused but are still looking for his companions.
5. The police have only been able to recover the Panasonic TV, the Sony Stereo and speakers, fishing rod, coffee set and DVD player.

The accused

6. The accused is 27 years old. He is single and was employed as a fisherman on a fishing vessel. He finished school at Year 12. Both his parents died when he was young and ever since he has been taken care of and looked after by his aunty whom he regards as his mother. His mother has apologized to the victim but the apology was not accepted. The victim has also apologised to the victim outside of this Courtroom when this matter was first mentioned but there is no evidence that apology was accepted either.
7. As it appears from the pre-sentence report, the accused told the probation service, that he was led by the two other boys to the house of the victim. Those two boys broke into the victim’s house and stole the items of property mentioned in the first charge. They then sold those properties to someone at Palisi. Even if that is true, the accused willingly went along with his co-offenders on the second night that they burgled the victim’s house.

The aggravating and mitigating features

8. This is a case of a double burglary of the same house on two consecutive nights. Burglary of a residential house involves invasion of privacy of a home and the consequential psychological impact on the home owner and his family. This is an important aggravating factor in cases of burglary of a residential house. The values of the items of property stolen in this case and the quantity thereof are other aggravating features of this offending.
9. There is no mitigating feature of this offending. There is also no mitigating feature that is personal to the accused as offender except his guilty plea and the fact that he is a first time burglar.

Discussion

10. Applying the totality principle of sentencing and having regard to the aggravating features of the offending and the need for deterrence in this kind of case, I will take 18 months as the starting point for sentence. I will then deduct 6 months for the guilty plea. That leaves 12 months. As the accused is a first time burglar, I will deduct another 2 months and that leaves 9 months.
11. Even though the accused is a first time burglar, this offending is very serious. I therefore consider that a custodial sentence is warranted in this case.

The result

12. The accused is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each of the two burglary charges and on each of the two theft charges against him. All sentences are to be concurrent. The accused will therefore effectively serve 9 months imprisonment. The time he has already spent in custody pending the outcome of this matter is to be deducted from that sentence.
    

-------------------------------------

CHIEF JUSTICE