Police v Fa'aleleiga [2014] WSSC 181 (10 October 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Fa’aleleiga [2014] WSSC 181

Case name:	Police v Fa’aleleiga
Citation:	[2014] WSSC 181
Decision date:	10 October 2014
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) SAMUELU SARASOPA FA’ALELEIGA male of Nofoalii and Sa’anapu. (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:	For the charge of burglary you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison. But remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted. On the charge of theft, allowing for all relevant factors convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison, concurrent term.
Representation:	O Tagaloa 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:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SAMUELU SARASOPA FA’ALELEIGA male of Nofoalii and Sa’anapu.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 10 October 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant appears for sentence having pleading guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft. This is not his first court appearance he was convicted of similar charges in 2011 for which he received a sentence of supervision and community service. The police summary of facts which the defendant has admitted states he is a 23 year old male of Saanapu and Nofoalii single and is currently employed at Tree Fish in Vaigaga. The complainant is a 37 year old female of Vaitele-fou married with 4 children.
2. At the time of the offence the defendant was living with the complainant at the complainants home in Vaitele-fou and treated by the complainant as a member of her family. On Tuesday, 22^nd April 2014 the complainant and her family including the defendant left their house in Vaitele for work and school. Between 11:00 am – 12:00 pm that day the defendant returned to the complainants house. He went to the back and the door was locked. He put his hand through the window louvers next to the door and unlocked the door from inside. The defendant tried to open the complainants room but was locked. He used a screw driver to open the complainants door. The defendant took the following items that were inside the said room: one apple Iphone 4 valued at $1,900, portable Toshiba DVD player valued at $580, Holy Bible valued at $120, black T-shirt valued at $90, reading glasses valued at $12. The total value of items taken is $2,702.00.
3. On Thursday 24 April 2014 the defendant tried to sell some of the items to another person. This person suspected the items were stolen and reported the defendant to the police. The defendant was apprehended and taken to the Apia Police Post where he was found in possession of all the items belonging to the complainant.
4. It would appear all the items the defendant stole have been restored to the complainant. The complainant says in her victim impact report that what affected her most about the incident is the fact that the defendant lived with them for at least 2 months and was treated as part of the family. They went ahead and took him in even though they are not related thinking that they can help him to be a better person. On the day they saw the defendant at the police station the defendant cried and asked for forgiveness for what he had done. The complainant also says she has forgiven the defendant and prays for him. And hope he learns something because he is a very talented person.
5. I agree with the complainant Samuelu it is clear from the material before me you are not silly. The probation office report on you indicates however that you are an unsettled individual and that you roam from one part of your family to another. Probably explains why members of the family did not appear the last time this was called or today even though the probation office advised them. But it is not too late Samuelu to turn your life around you are still young. It is the courts hope that you do not end up a career criminal like many burglars and thieves who come before the court. But turning your life around Samuelu that is a matter no one can help you with except yourself. Before you embark on that path you must be held accountable for this burglary and theft that you have committed.
6. The charge of burglary carries a 10 year maximum penalty. The defendants offending is aggravated by the fact that he breached the trust of the complainant with whom he was living. And that he planned what he was going to do. I agree with the prosecution that considering all factors a 2 year start point is appropriate. That must be uplifted by 3 months because of your previous conviction that means a start point for sentence of 27 months in prison.
7. But from that you are entitled to certain deductions which I will now make. Firstly one-quarter of sentence deduction for your guilty plea because that has saved the courts time. That also means you acknowledged your wrongdoing. I deduct a period of 7 months, leaves a balance of 20 months in prison. Secondly for your apology to the complainant and your expression of remorse to her and to the court which I accept a further deduction is warranted. I will deduct 4 months for that leaves a balance of 16 months in prison.
8. To reflect the fact that all the goods were recovered and returned intact to the complainant a further deduction of 4 months will be made for you balance of sentence. Leaves 12 months in prison. There are no other deductions Samuelu that can be make for your case.
9. For the charge of burglary you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison. But remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted.
10. On the charge of theft, allowing for all relevant factors convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison, concurrent term.
    

JUSTICE NELSON