Police v Lefaiaao [2015] WSSC 22 (20 March 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lefaiaao [2015] WSSC 22

Case name:	Police v Lefaiaao
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 22
Decision date:	20 March 2015
Parties:	POLICE v ISALEI TUSANI LEFAIAAO (accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S4509/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment
Representation:	P Chang for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Theft – guilty at earliest opportunity – maximum penalty – breach of trust – previous convictions for theft - sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.161 s.165 (b).
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S4509/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

ISALEI TUSANI LEFAIAAO male of Savaia Lefaga
Accused

Counsel:
P Chang for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 20 March 2015

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused Isalei Tusani Lefaiaao appears for sentence on the charge of theft, contrary to To the charge he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2. According to the prosecution’s summary of facts confirmed by the accused, the accused was at the material time employed as a welder by a construction company in the construction of a house at Moamoa. After work each day, the company’s tools including a cigweld and its blue case were stored in a wooden tool box. After work on 29 December 2014, the accused stole the cigweld from the wooden tool box and sold it for $150. The true value of the cigweld is $2,800. The police were able to locate the stolen cigweld and returned it to the accused’s former employer. As a result of this offending, the accused was terminated by his employer.
3. As shown from the pre-sentence report, the accused told the probation service that he committed this offence because he was angry with his employer for reducing his wages and suspending him from work for two weeks without prior warning. If this is true, it is not a legitimate excuse for the accused to steal his employer’s cigweld.
4. The accused is not a first offender. He has previous convictions for theft in 2006, 2011 and 2012. He also has a previous conviction for possession of narcotics in 2010. The pre-sentence report shows that the accused told the probation service that he is a first offender. This was not true. He has several previous convictions as confirmed from police records. What happened is that the accused is using a surname for this offence which is different from the surname he used in the past and which appears in his previous conviction card. This is not a sign of remorse on the part of the accused.
5. In relation to the offending, the aggravating features are the clear breach by the accused of his employer’s trust and the value of the stolen cigweld. In relation to the accused as offender, his previous convictions for theft is an aggravating feature. On the other hand, his guilty plea at the earliest opportunity is a mitigating feature relating to him as offender.
6. Having regard to the aggravating feature relating to the offending and the maximum penalty for this offence, I will take 10 months as the starting point for sentence. I will add on 3 months for the previous theft convictions. That increases the starting point to 13 months. I will then deduct 1/3 or 4 months for the early guilty plea. That leaves 9 months.
7. The accused is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.
   

----------------------------------
Honourable Chief Justice