Police v Misifoa [2014] WSSC 5 (21 January 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Misifoa [2014] WSSC 5

Case name: Police v Misifoa

Citation: [2014] WSSC 5

Decision date: 21 January 2014
Parties:
POLICE (Prosecution) and MATAITAI MISIFOA (Accused) male of Faleasiu.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S2578/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Sentence, burglary, .mitigation of penalty

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 s.174

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S2578/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

MATAITAI MISIFOA male of Faleula

Accused

Counsel:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 21 January 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused is 18 years of age. He is currently attending school. He is appearing for sentence on the charge of burglary, contrary to s.174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. To the charge he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2. The prosecution’s summary of facts, which was confirmed by the accused, shows that on 1 December 2013 at around 2.00pm in the afternoon the accused used a knife to open the back door of the complainant’s house at Vailima and entered it without the knowledge and authority of the complainant. The accused told the Court that his intention was to steal from the complainant’s house.
3. At the time of the offending, the accused was visiting his two friends who were employed by the complainant. He told the probation service that he had heard from his friends that they had stolen items of property from the complainant’s house and sold them. They then used the proceeds of their crime for their own personal needs. This tempted the accused to do the same.
4. When the accused broke into the complainant’s house, the complainant was inside the bathroom. He sensed someone was standing behind the curtain of the bathroom. When he pulled the curtain, he saw the accused standing right behind the curtain. He then told the accused to leave the house.
5. The complainant then immediately reported the matter to the police who apprehended the accused the same day.
6. As already mentioned, the accused is attending school. Last year he sat the school certificate exams. His examination results are not known.
7. The accused is a first offender. The testimonials from his mother and church pastor show that he had been a person of good character. The pre-sentence report also shows that the parents of the accused have apologised to the complainant and the apology was duly accepted.
8. In passing sentence, I take into account the serious nature of the offending. I also take into account in mitigation of penalty the young age of the accused, the fact that he is still attending school, the fact that he is a first time burglar and had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence, the apology by his parents to the complainant, and his plea of guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity.
9. After weighing all those circumstances, I have decided to give the accused a second chance to mend his ways and redeem himself. The accused is sentenced to 6 months community service.
   

-------------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE