Police v Segiolo [2016] WSSC 138 (26 July 2016)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Segiolo [2016] WSSC 138

Case name:	Polive v Segiolo
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 138
Decision date:	26 July 2016
Parties:	POLICE v LOGOVII MAULUPE ILI TANUVASE SEGIOLO male of Satapuala and Samata
Hearing date(s):	26 July 2016
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren
On appeal from:
Order:	For the charge of theft, the accused is convicted sentenced to 5 ½ months imprisonment. Time spent in custody to be deducted.
Representation:	F. Ioane for Prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Theft – previous convictions of similar nature – custodial sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section 161 and 165(b)
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

LOGOVII MAULUPE ILI TANUVASE SEGIOLO male of Satapuala and Samata
Accused

Counsel:
F. Ioane for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 26 July 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of theft pursuant to ss 161 and 165(b) Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.
2. He pleaded not guilty to the charge but was granted leave to change his plea on 1 July 2016 to a guilty plea.

The offending

3. According to the summary of facts admitted by the accused, in the early hours of 5 July 2016, the victim forgot his bag at one of the bus terminals at Savalalo and left in a taxi. The accused saw the bag and took it to the seawall. He was with a friend. When they arrived at the seawall, the accused rummaged through the bag. He then gave the bag to his friend and took some items with him. The matter was reported to the Police and after a week, the Police recovered the items as follows from the accused;
   • One American passport valued at USD$150.00;
   • One iPhone valued at USD$ 1,600.00;
   • One Samsung tablet valued at USD$500.00;
   • One tablet case valued at USD$100.00;
   • One pair of military sunglasses valued at USD$175.00;
   • One pair of sunglasses valued at USD$45.00;
   • One pair of reading glasses valued at USD$70;
   • One pair of reading glasses valued at USD$145.00;
   • One radio recorder valued at USD$50.00; and
   • Cash of SAT$2000.00 was not recovered.
   • The total value of the stolen property is SAT$8,812.00.

Background of the accused

4. The accused is 37 years old and single. He works as a fisherman and prior to this offending was earning $470.00 per week.
5. He lives with his siblings at Samatau.
6. He has previous convictions for similar offences of burglary and theft in 1991 and 1993, actual bodily harm in 1997 and possession of narcotics in 2000.

The Victim

7. No Victim Impact Report was provided by Prosecution to the Court. The only fact from the summary of facts is that the victim is a 67 year old male from Utah, United States and he was in Samoa to visit relatives.

Aggravating Features of the Offending

8. The significant value of the stolen items is an aggravating factor, being SAT$8,812.00.
9. I also consider it aggravating that the victim was from overseas to visit his relatives and to have this happen to him would have no doubt ruined his trip.

Mitigating features of the offending

10. It is a mitigating feature of the offending that most of the stolen property was recovered by Police, except for the cash. But this is of little weight since it took a week and the victim would have experienced stress in that week waiting to see if his property could be found.

Aggravating features in respect of the offender

11. I consider an aggravating feature in respect of the accused is that he has previous convictions for similar offences, although I do note his last offending was in 2000.

Mitigating factors

12. The accused will be given some credit for his belated guilty pleas.

Discussion

13. Prosecution has recommended a sentence of imprisonment.
14. Having considered the aggravating features and mitigating features of the offending, I agree that an imprisonment term is an appropriate sentence in this case. It is a whole change of mindset that has to occur in our society, in terms of the unacceptability of theft in any situation. The situation here was that the victim had forgotten his bag. As law abiding citizens, the only option for the finder of the bag is to report it to the Police, not take it and the property inside. The accused had a well paying job before the offending. He put that at risk when he offended. The Court will continue to impose sentences of imprisonment in particular for repeat theft offenders until the message gets through that theft in all its forms is unacceptable.
15. The starting point for sentence is 6 months imprisonment. I will add 1 month for the accused previous convictions. That increases the starting point to 7 months. I will deduct 20% or 1 ½ months for his guilty pleas. That leaves 5 ½ months imprisonment.

Sentence

16. For the charge of theft, the accused is convicted sentenced to 5 ½ months imprisonment.
17. Time spent in custody to be deducted.
    

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN