Police v Tiatia [2014] WSSC 149 (3 July 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tiatia [2014] WSSC 149

Case name:	Police v Tiatia
Citation:	[2014] WSSC 149
Decision date:	03 July 2014
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) AMITUANAI FILIPO TIATIA, male of Gataivai and Siusega. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	In respect of all 36 charges the defendant will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 21 months imprisonment.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution L R Schuster for defendant
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

AMITUANAI FILIPO TIATIA, male of Gataivai and Siusega.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
L R Schuster for defendant

Sentence: 03 July 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant faces thirty seven (37) counts of theft as a servant. He has pleaded guilty to thirty six (36) of them but not guilty to one charge namely, S2144/13 alleging that between the 6^th and 28^th of November 2012 while a servant of Ah Mu Academy School he did steal $16,590.00 in money from his employer.
2. It is common ground the defendant was at the relevant time principal of the Academy School situated at Pesega in Apia. He began in August 2011 and ceased late December 2012. The discrepancies leading to his termination were uncovered by the schools end of year audit for 2012. Where it was found the receipted income from the pupils school fees substantially exceeded the monies deposited to the school bank account. The defendant as principal was responsible for receiving the daily income from fees, signing off on the appropriate reconciliation form prepared by the school secretary and keeping safe custody of the monies and depositing them to the school bank account in due course.
3. The evidence showed that monies kept overnight were stored in a locked filing cabinet in his office. It also showed the defendant was in the habit of borrowing from these monies and sometimes replenishing what he took, most times not. This was the essence of the evidence of the school secretary who must also bear some responsibility in this matter for allowing the defendant to do what he did. And never following up on payment as promised by the defendant. The end result of this practice was a substantial loss to the Academy.
4. After hearing the prosecution evidence I dismissed S2144/13 as I was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the shortages covered by that information had not already been included in the other 36 charges. It appeared to me the defendant was to some undetermined extent being charged again with stealing the same monies. When this was put to the two witnesses for the prosecution they agreed that there may have been some double billing as it were. This uncertainty could perhaps have been cleared up by the school auditors but they were not called by the prosecution as witnesses. The end result is therefore the defendant appears for sentence only on the 36 counts he pleaded guilty to. Amounts which total $16,473.00.
5. The defendants background is fully canvassed in the pre-sentence report. He is a qualified teacher with a Bachelor of Science Degree from Victoria University in Wellington New Zealand. He worked in New Zealand at various schools before returning to his land of birth. He has worked as a teacher in Samoa for over 20 years. In 2011 he took up the post of principal of the complainant school.
6. The pre-sentence report shows that he is a relied upon member of his family. He is active in his home village of Gataivai in Savaii, various people speak highly of him in references attached to the pre-sentence report. I have no doubt he is a person of good character. He has paid back in full the amount involved in these charges when these discrepancies came to light. Because he appears on counts which occurred before the new Crimes legislation came into force he must be dealt with pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Crimes Ordinance 1961. Under that the maximum penalty for each of the 36 counts is 7 years in prison.
7. The courts policy in respect of such offending is well established by a long line of cases. It is serious offending and its effects are always acutely felt in a small community such as ours. It is also one of the most common offences coming before the court. Consequently the courts policy is to impose imprisonment as its usual penalty. Unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting some other treatment. The court takes no pleasure in sending talented and highly skilled individuals to jail. But there are no exceptional circumstances here that would justify another form of penalty.
8. The breach of trust here was great. The defendant held the top post in the school and was accountable direct to the school board. There is no question he was well aware of his duties and responsibilities. He stole a significant sum of money over an approximately 10 month or so period. This is not a one off theft but repeated offending. And the defendants activities were only brought to light by the school auditors report. An imprisonment sentence is required as a means of holding him accountable for his behaviour. To also operate as a personal deterrent for the defendant and so that the court continues to send the message to the public at large that if you do this sort of thing imprisonment is your most likely fate. It also reinforces the value of honesty and integrity for those who hold high office.
9. Considering all the circumstances especially the fact that the defendant in this case held the top post in the school a 5 year start point for sentence is appropriate. From that he is entitled to certain discounts which his counsel has referred to. For your guilty plea Amituanai a one quarter discount will be applied that is a period of 15 months leaves a balance of 45 months. The defendant has a clean record, pre-sentence report refers to his good background of service to his family and to his community. Normally a 6 month deduction is made for such factors. But in this case in recognition of the defendants outstanding record I double that to a deduction of 12 months. Leaves a balance of 33 months. To take into consideration that full restitution of the sum involved in these offences has been made and the fact that the amount involved is a significant sum, I deduct a further 12 months from the balance of the defendants sentence leaving 21 months.
10. In respect of all 36 charges the defendant will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 21 months imprisonment.
    

JUSTICE NELSON