Police v Taula [2016] WSSC 134 (25 July 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taula [2016] WSSC 134

Case name:	Police v Taula
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 134
Decision date:	25 July 2016
Parties:	POLICE v SAUMAMAO IAULUALO TAULA male of Faala Palauli
Hearing date(s):	25 July 2016
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN
On appeal from:
Order:	For one charge of burglary, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 10 months supervision with the special conditions that he attend Toe Afua se Taeao Fou programme, or other alcohol counselling program as directed by probation and he is not to consume alcohol. For the charge of theft, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months supervision. Both sentences are to be served concurrently.
Representation:	L Sio for prosecution Accused Unrepresented
Catchwords:	Burglary - theft – aggravating and mitigating features of the offence – non-custodial sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section 174 and section 161,-165(d)
	Community Justice Act 2008
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

SAUMAMAO IAULUALO TAULA male of Faala Palauli
Accused

Counsel:
L. Sio for Prosecution
Accused Unrepresented

Sentence: 25 July 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of burglary, contrary to s.174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, and one charge of theft pursuant to ss 161 and 165(d) Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment.
2. He pleaded guilty to the charges on 11 July 2016.

The offending

3. The Prosecution summary of facts admitted by the accused says that on 15 May 2016, at 11pm, the accused was drinking with his friends at a friend’s house. Later on that night on his way home, the accused walked to the victim’s shop and used a rock to crack the window of the shop. He went inside the shop and removed the following goods and placed them under a mango tree outside;
   1. One 1.5 litre bottle of vodka valued at SAT $48.00;
   2. Ten pairs of sandals total value SAT$100.00;
   3. Six cans of sausages total value SAT$16.80;
   4. One volleyball valued at SAT$20.00; and
   5. One bush knife valued at SAT$30.00.
   6. The total value of the stolen goods is SAT$214.80.
   7. All the goods were recovered by the victim because when the accused went back inside the shop, he was caught.

The accused

4. As shown in the pre-sentence report, the accused is 19 years old. He was brought up mainly by his maternal grandparents at Faala as his parents divorced at a young age. He left school after completing Year 10.
5. He stays home and does chores for the family.
6. As a result of this offending, he was banished from Faala for 5 years as his family could not pay the village council penalty of 50 sows. This is confirmed by the village mayor. He now stays with family at Lalomalava.
7. His 84 year old grandmother has apologised to the victim for the actions of the accused.
8. He is a first offender.

Aggravating features of the offending

9. Prosecution submits that an aggravating feature is that the accused invaded the shop of the victim. I agree.
10. It is also aggravating that in carrying out his offending, the accused broke a window of the shop with a rock.

Mitigating features of the offending

11. It is a mitigating feature of the offending that all the goods were recovered.

Mitigating factors

12. It should be made clear to the accused, that his intoxication is not an excuse for his offending.
13. I take into account the apology by the grandmother of the accused to the victim which was accepted. This was confirmed by the victim to Probation.
14. The accused has been banished by his village for 5 years and I take this penalty into account.
15. The remorse expressed by the victim is taken into account as well as his young age, being just 19 years old.
16. The final mitigating factor is his early guilty pleas to the charges.

Discussion

17. Probation in its pre sentence report has recommended a community based sentence and community work.
18. Prosecution recommends a conviction and a sentence of supervision.
19. Having taken into account the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending, I find that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Section 13 of the Community Justice Act 2008 states that a Court may impose a sentence of supervision only if the Court is satisfied that a sentence of supervision would reduce the likelihood of further offending by the offender through the rehabilitation an reintegration of the offender. Section 16 of the same Act states that the Court may impose such special condition or conditions related to the rehabilitation or integration of an offender as the Court thinks necessary.
20. I am convinced that the accused should be given an opportunity to attend rehabilitation programmes for alcohol counselling. His offending took place after drinking alcohol. While this is no excuse, his young age indicates that he needs some counselling around alcohol consumption. This sentence focuses on his rehabilitation.

Sentence

21. For one charge of burglary, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 10 months supervision with the special conditions that he attend Toe Afua se Taeao Fou programme, or other alcohol counselling program as directed by probation and he is not to consume alcohol.
22. For the charge of theft, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months supervision.
23. Both sentences are to be served concurrently.
    

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN