Police v Sinoti [2015] WSSC 236 (7 August 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sinoti [2015] WSSC 236

Case name:	Police v Sinoti
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 236
Decision date:	07 August 2015
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) TEOFILO ALENI SINOTI, male of Leauvaa-uta. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	07 August 2015
File number(s):	S1641/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	I am satisfied Teofilo beyond reasonable doubt you were party to the co-defendants undertaking to the extent that you used your vehicle to sell the goods. That makes you by law an accessory to the theft and liable to the same penalties.
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:

TEOFILO ALENI SINOTI, male of Leauvaa-uta.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented
Hearing: 07 August 2015
Decision: 07 August 2015

ORAL DECISION OF NELSON J

1. Teofilo is charged with being a party to a theft of goods worth almost $4,000 on the night of 15 May 2015 from Chan Mow Wholesale. The goods comprised thirty (30) boxes of chicken legs valued at $44.50 each, thirty one (31) boxes of turkey wings valued at $71.30 each, four (4) bags of carrots valued at $86.20 each, and one (1) box of oranges worth $104.80.
2. His co-defendants security guards Poasa Oloapu and Aki Lima pleaded guilty to the theft and are currently serving prison terms. The defendant is alleged to be the driver of the taxi used to transport the goods from Chan Mow Wholesale compound to a shop at Vailele where they were sold to a fourth defendant who has also been dealt with by the court.
3. Poasa and Aki have given evidence indicating the defendant was fully aware the goods were stolen and agreed to participate in the disposal of the said goods. They said the defendant was recruited by Aki who knew him. For his service the defendant was paid $300.00. It is clear this theft occurred at night when the Wholesale was closed and no one else was around the Chan Mow compound.
4. The defendant has maintained he was ignorant of the fact that the goods were stolen. He says he innocently transported the goods by way of two trips from Chan Mow Wholesale compound in town to Vailele where they were sold. He considers the $300 he received reasonable compensation for his efforts given there were two trips involved and each time his vehicle had to carry a very heavy load. He says he expressed some concern to Aki during the first trip about what was happening. But this evidence was not put to Aki when the defendant was cross examining Aki.
5. I do not accept the defendants assertion. It is simply not plausible or credible. The incident occurred according to him at 8:00 to 9:00 pm at night in the Wholesale Compound. It must have been obvious to him the Wholesale was long closed. He is a taxi driver, he knows exactly when such places close. There were also Chan Mow trucks parked in the compound which cast grave doubt on his claim that he thought what was being taken were late Chan Mow deliveries. As a taxi driver he would know that no wholesale company in this country delivers goods in taxis. Whatever the time of day or night.
6. The evidence of accomplices can form the basis of a conviction of a defendant if they are consistent with each other. Such evidence in law can be mutually corroborative and that is the case here. I can see no reason your co-defendants Teofilo would come to court and perjure themselves. They certainly have received no benefit in terms of reduced prison time for their testimony. That adds to their credibility.
7. The defendant can be found guilty on two basis. Firstly as per the evidence of his co-defendants he was fully aware of the situation and agreed to use his taxi to sell the stolen goods. Or that he only realized the goods were stolen when his taxi pulled into the Chan Mow Compound that night. He had the option at that time of refusing to participate and driving out of the Compound again. He did not instead he participated in the venture. I am satisfied that he did not at any subsequent stage protest or raise concern about what was happening.
8. Teofilo you are an educated man. You have held a number of jobs including on a purse- sein er in American Samoa for 5 years. This is not a case of an illiterate planter in the bush being deceived by smart conmen.
9. I am satisfied Teofilo beyond reasonable doubt you were party to the co-defendants undertaking to the extent that you used your vehicle to sell the goods. That makes you by law an accessory to the theft and liable to the same penalties.
10. Peitai e leai se faasalaga e fai i le aso ona e manaomia e le faamasinoga se lipoti mai le ofisa faanofo vaavaaia. A maea le tataou mataupu e tatau ona e oo i le ofisa faanofo vaavaaia e logo iai le aso lea ua tolopo iai lau mataupu mo se faaiuga. O le aso lea ua tolopo iai o le aso 24 o Aukuso mo le lipoti a le ofisa ma se faaiuga a le faamasinoga. Tulaga o le tatalaga o oe i tua e faaauau pea pei ona iai i le taimi nei. A faapea o lena e te saini faaauau pea lau saini i le ofisa o leoleo. Ua e malamalama? (Defendant said yes).
    

JUSTICE NELSON