Police v Tauauve'a [2014] WSSC 7 (7 February 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Tauauve’a [2014] WSSC 7

Case name: Police v Tauauve’a

Citation: [2014] WSSC 7

Decision date: 7 February 2014
Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and LOTOA PALUGA TAUAUVE’A male of Vaiee Safata.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S3051/13

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:
sentence, burglary

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 s.174

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: s3051/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

LOTOA PALUGA TAUAUVE’A male of Vaiee Safata.

Accused

Counsel: L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 7 February 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused Lotoa Paluga Tauauve’a of Vaiee, Safata, is jointly charged with burglary with a co-accused pursuant to s.174 of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. To the charge they pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. However, when this matter was called for sentencing on 21 January 2014, only the accused appeared but not his co-accused. The warrant of arrest issued against the co-accused is still outstanding.
2. According to the prosecution’s summary of facts, the accused and the co-accused were employed as groundsmen by the complainant. The accused was also staying at the complainant’s house. In the morning of 22 November 2013, the complainant left for American Samoa. In the afternoon, the accused and his co-accused entered the complainant’s house and used a knife to open the door to the complainant’s bedroom and took a ring worth $1,500. They then sold the ring for $450 and divided the money amongst themselves. When the complainant returned from American Samoa, he discovered that someone had broken into his bedroom. The matter was reported to the police who found out that it was the accused and his co-accused who were responsible. The ring has since been returned to the complainant by the accused.
3. The complainant is 64 years old. The accused is 29 years old. He is a first offender and it appears from the testimonials from his father and village pastor to have been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. The accused and his parents have apologised to the complainant and the apology was accepted. The complainant has forgiven the accused and has requested that the charge against the accused be withdrawn. The accused, as already mentioned, has also returned the ring to the complainant. He also expressed deep remorse to the Court and said he would not do this kind of thing again.
4. The aggravating features of this offending are the breach by the accused of his employer’s trust, the value of the ring that was taken, the use of a knife to open the complainant’s bedroom, and home invasion. The mitigating features personal to the accused are the apology by the accused and his parents to the complainant which was accepted, the return of the stolen ring to the complainant, the fact that as a first offender the accused had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offending, and the accused’s guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
5. In all circumstances, I have decided to give the accused a second chance to mend his ways and redeem himself. He is sentenced to 12 months probation with the special condition to perform 50 hours community service as directed by the probation service.
   

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia for prosecution