Police v Taitasi [2016] WSSC 175 (16 September 2016)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taitasi [2016] WSSC 175

Case name:	Police v Taitasi
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 175
Decision date:	16 September 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) v IOANE TAITASI male of Lotofaga Aleipata (Accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	The Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tafaoimalo Tuala Warren
On appeal from:
Order:	For both charges the accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision with the special conditions that he attend Toe Afua se Taeao Fou programme, or other alcohol counselling programme as directed by probation, he is to perform 20 hours of community service for his village as directed by his Village Council and he is to refrain from consuming alcohol within the period of supervision. His Village Council is best placed to monitor this last condition.
Representation:	L. Sio for Prosecution P. Mulitalo for Accused
Catchwords:	Burglary, theft
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, section.174 and sub section 161 and 165(d)
Cases cited:	Senior v Police (2000) 18 CRNZ 340
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

IOANE TAITASI male of Lotofaga Aleipata
Accused

Counsel:
L. Sio for Prosecution
P. Mulitalo for Accused

Sentence: 16 September 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 22 August 2016.

The offending

3. The Prosecution summary of facts admitted by the accused says that on 2 July 2016, between 12pm -2pm, the accused entered the victim’s hotel room at Saletoga Beach Resort and took one bottle of Bacardi alcohol. The victim was not in the room at the time. She was a guest from Australia.

The accused

4. As shown in the pre-sentence report, the accused is 19 years old. At the time of the offending, he was a gardener with Saletoga Beach Resort earning $120.00 per week. He lost his job as a result of his offending. His family now rely solely on their plantation.
5. He is the eldest of six children and was expelled from school in Year 10 for fighting.
6. According to the accused, he and a few workmates consumed a large bottle of rice vodka at work on the day of the offending. He says they started drinking at 9am and the reason for the offending was to get more alcohol.
7. He has not apologised to the manager of the Resort.
8. He has no previous convictions.

Aggravating features of the offending

9. Prosecution submits that an aggravating feature is that the accused planned his offending. I accept this because he had been drinking and planned the offending in order to acquire more alcohol.
10. A second and significant aggravating feature is the impact of the offending on the victim, her sense of security in Samoa and her view of Samoa. Whilst there is no victim impact report, there is no doubt that this incident has had an impact on the victim’s view of her safety and security whilst in the country. This affects her overall view and impression of Samoa.
11. There is also the issue of the trust placed in him by the employer. He breached this by going into one of the hotel rooms without authority.

Mitigating Factors

12. The only mitigating factor is his early guilty plea to the charges.

Discussion

13. Probation in its pre sentence report has recommended a community based sentence.
14. Prosecution also recommends a community based sentence in the form of supervision. Prosecution submits that the accused is a ‘first time burglar’. This categorisation is found in Senior v Police (2000) 18 CRNZ 340. For first time burglars, a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed but frequently that was not the case.
15. Having taken into account the aggravating and mitigating features, I find that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate in this case.
16. 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 and 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 reintegration of an offender as the Court thinks necessary.
17. 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 and in the pursuit of more alcohol. He is 19 years old and needs some intervention at this stage otherwise he will appear back in Court on similar offences. He will be given an opportunity to prove to the Court that this offending was out of character and that this is the last time he commits this type of offence.

Sentence

18. For both charges the accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision with the special conditions that he attend Toe Afua se Taeao Fou programme, or other alcohol counselling programme as directed by probation, he is to perform 20 hours of community service for his village as directed by his Village Council and he is to refrain from consuming alcohol within the period of supervision. His Village Council is best placed to monitor this last condition.
    

JUSTICE TAFAOIMALO TUALA-WARREN