Police v Tevesi [2015] WSSC 191 (23 November 2015)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tevesi [2015] WSSC 191

Case name:	Police v Tevesi
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 191
Decision date:	23 November 2015
Parties:	Police (prosecution) and Faleaoa Fuipisia Taitasi Tevesi, male of Lotofaga Aleipata (defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S4180/14
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Vaai
On appeal from:
Order:	For this offence you are convicted and ask to come up for sentence within 12 months, you will not be called upon if you do not reoffend.
Representation:	F Ioane for prosecution Unrepresented
Catchwords:	Forgery – obtaining by deception – extremely remorse
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

FALEAOA FUIPISIA TAITASI TEVESI male of Lotofaga Aleipata
Defendant

Counsel: F Ioane for prosecution
Unrepresented
Sentence: 23 November 2015

S E N T E N C E

1. Defendant you appear for sentence of one charge of forgery and four charges of obtaining by deception. For the charge of forgery you are liable to 10 years imprisonment, for deception you are liable to 1 year imprisonment.
2. You drafted a false letter requesting monies for purchase of your shoes and medical expenses for your diabetic needs.
3. You then forged the signature of the Bishop of your church on that letter. You took that letter and gave it to several people at Falefa where you obtained monies from at least four people. When you attempted to obtain it from the fifth person, that person became suspicious and rang the bishop as that fifth person knew the bishop personally. It was that telephone which informed the bishop of your criminal activities. You have pleaded guilty to one charge of forgery and four charges of obtaining by deception.
4. Based on previous sentences impose by this court and by the District for similar offending, the prosecution now submit that a starting point of 2 years imprisonment should be considered for the charge of forgery and for the charges of obtaining by deception an imprisonment sentence of 3 months should be considered.
5. In your favour I take into account the monies that you received as a result of your criminal offending only came to a $110 tala. You have told the Court that the Court should consider your needs that you are a person of special needs. It will be sending a wrong message to the members of the public if persons who take advantage of their special needs to commit offences should be allowed to get away easily. So it is not right for you defendant to take advantage of your special needs to fool others.
6. In any event, the bishop whose signature that you force has asked for the court for forgiveness in fact he asked the court if this matter could be withdrawn. But he is not really the victim of your offending, the victims are those that gave you monies as a result of the forgery and deception. The sum of money that you received as I have indicated were not substantial, in fact the total amount as I have said is only $110 tala. I have read the probation report prepared as well as the testimonials.
7. Given the circumstances of your offending, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence is not the appropriate sentence in this matter. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and you have managed your journey through life for 40 years without offending. I accept that you are extremely remorseful for what you have done.
8. For this offence you are convicted and ask to come up for sentence within 12 months, you will not be called upon if you do not reoffend.

JUSTICE VAAI