Police v Sione [2016] WSSC 120 (15 June 2016)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Sione [2016] WSSC 120

Case name:	Police v Sione
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 120
Decision date:	15 June 2016
Parties:	POLICE v SIONE SIONE male of Vaimea
Hearing date(s):	15 June 2016
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUSTICE LEILANI TUALA-WARREN
On appeal from:
Order:	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months supervision with the special condition that he attend anger management programmes and/or a men’s advocacy programme as directed by Probation.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for Prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	robbery
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section 176
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

SIONE SIONE male of Vaimea
Accused

Counsel:
O Tagaloa for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 15 June 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused is 20 years old from Vaimea. He appears for sentence on one charge of robbery, contrary to s.176 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
   2. He pleaded guilty to the charge on 16 May 2016.

The offending

3. The Prosecution summary of facts admitted by the accused says that on 23 March 2016 at around 3.30 pm, the victim was walking home from school. When he reached the front of JP gym and bar, he met the accused and his friend. The accused asked the victim if he had any money inside his bag. The victim replied that he did not have any money. The accused then forcefully searched the victim’s pockets and found the victim’s cell phone. He took the victim’s cell phone, earphones and the memory of the phone.
   4. The total value of the goods stolen is $45.00.

The accused

5. As shown in the pre-sentence report, the accused is 20 years old, single. He works at JPs at night and helps his mother with her handicrafts stall at the market during the day. He lives with his mother and one sibling at Vaimea as his parents divorced at a young age. He left school at Year 12.
6. There is a letter from Reverend Kuresa saying that the accused is part of the choir and youth group of the church. The Reverend also says that he has counselled the accused and the accused is remorseful for what he did.
7. He has no previous convictions.

The victim

8. The victim impact report says that the victim is 17 years old and a student from Alamagoto.
9. The accused and his family approached the victim’s family and apologised. The victim’s parents accepted the apology and the accused returned all the stolen items. There is a letter from the victim’s mother confirming the apology by the accused and the reconciliation.
10. The victim says that he is now on good terms with the accused and the matter has been resolved.

Aggravating features of the offending

11. An aggravating feature of this offending is that there was some degree of violence. Forcefully searching the victim’s pockets is an act of violence, albeit minor.
12. It is also aggravating that the victim is only 17 years old and still in school. Picking on the victim who is younger than him is an act of bullying by the accused.

Mitigating Factors

13. It is a mitigating factor that the stolen property was returned.
14. It is also mitigating that there has been reconciliation between the accused and the victim.
15. I also take into account the testimonial by Reverend Kuresa.
16. The final mitigating factor is his early guilty plea to the charge.

Discussion

17. The high penalty imposed by Parliament for this type of offending, being a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, reflects the seriousness with which it is viewed by Parliament. This is because it is theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence. In this case, the accused forcefully searched the victim’s pockets. Although this is low level violence, it is still an act of violence. In this particular case, the accused being older than the victim, is a bully.
18. Having taken into account the aggravating features and mitigating features, I have decided to impose a non custodial sentence and focus on the rehabilitation of this young accused. He has not had his father around and his need for a positive male role model is apparent. His sentence will focus on addressing his violence which has surfaced with this offending and stamp out this anti-social behaviour before it leads to more serious and more violent offending.

Sentence

19. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months supervision with the special condition that he attend anger management programmes and/or a men’s advocacy programme as directed by Probation.
    

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN