Police v Lagaaia [2015] WSSC 240 (7 September 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lagaaia [2015] WSSC 240

Case name:	Police v Lagaaia
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 240
Decision date:	07 September 2015
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) MELE LAGAAIA, female of Vaitele-fou and Papa Puleia. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S1992/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	On the charge you have pleaded guilty to you will be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison but any time spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that 4 years.
Representation:	Ms Amosa for prosecution Mr P Mulitalo for defendant
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	Police v Daryl Ah Far (19 February 2015)
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

MELE LAGAAIA, female ofVaitele-fou and Papa Puleia.
Defendant

Counsel: Ms Amosa for prosecution
Mr P Mulitalo for defendant

Sentence: 07 September 2015

SENTENCE

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge that between 24 October 2013 and 09 November 2013 she being one of a number of employees of the ANZ Bank in possession of or in control of monies kept in their employers vault did fail to account for monies in the amount of $100,000 to her employer and did thereby commit the crime of theft.
2. The summary of facts from the police which has not been disputed by the defendants counsel states she is a 32 year old female of Vaitele-fou and Papa Puleia in Savaii married with children. The victim company and complainant is the ANZ Bank. The defendant was at the relevant time employed as the bulk teller supervisor for the bank vault and ATMs at the Apia branch of the ANZ. She had been with the bank for more than 11 years. As team leader she supervised all the bulk tellers including her co-defendants.
3. The lengthy summary of facts can be distilled or summarised: in or about 2013 the defendant and her accomplices conspired to conceal some $100,000 from the bank cash holdings. The cash was kept in a courier bag by the defendant and her accomplices and they would move the cash around from ATMs to the vault and other areas of the bank and falsify documents in order to conceal what they were doing. The defendant and her accomplices used the money as their own private funds to draw upon when desired. The activities of the group were only caught by a surprise cash count conducted by a suspicious employer. The summary of facts shows the total loss to the bank as a result of these activities was some $51,950 in cash.
4. The defendant has said through her counsel that she only actually took $1,500. But that overlooks the fact that the charge is not theft of $1,500. But failing to account to her employers for $100,000 of bank monies. Money which the defendants kept and used as their own private cash reserve. That is the offence to which Mele has pleaded guilty and for which she now appears for sentence. The authorities relied upon by defence counsel in his written submissions which are directed to the $1,500 are therefore of limited use. As is counsels citation again of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That Convention cannot be relied upon to mitigate the defendants offending. The consequences of which she has brought upon the heads of her own children.
5. As noted by the court in Ah Far (19 February 2015) case this was a well organized criminal enterprise, extending to falsifying documents and records in order for the group to cover their activities. It was well planned and executed by people with a high degree of responsibility and trust. The documents before the court indicate the bank was required to fly in specialist investigators and auditors from overseas in an attempt to unravel what was happening. There is no question an imprisonment term is necessary, to hold the defendant accountable, to serve as a deterrent for her personally and for others.
6. In Ah Far the court adopted a start sentence of 5 years in prison. But you held a higher position of responsibility and trust. You were Ah Fars supervisor and you have been working for the bank for over 11 years. A higher start point for sentence must be applied.
7. The prosecution has submitted I should start sentence at 6½ years I think that is a little too high. In the circumstances I consider 6 years as the appropriate start place. From that start point for sentence Mele you are entitled to certain deductions for factors in your favour. Firstly I will deduct one-quarter of that period for your guilty plea because it has saved the courts time and the resources of the State. That is a deduction of 18 months leaves a balance of 54 months. You are a first offender, you have a reasonable pre-sentence report from the probation office, it is supported by a reference from your faifeau. You are entitled to credit for those matters I will deduct 6 months from the balance of your sentence leaves 48 months.
8. There are no other deduction Mele to be made in respect of your sentence. On the charge you have pleaded guilty to you will be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison but any time spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that 4 years.
   

JUSTICE NELSON