Police v Siaosi [2016] WSSC 186 (21 September 2016)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Siaosi [2016] WSSC 186

Case name:	Police v Siaosi
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 186
Decision date:	21 September 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) v SULA SIAOSI male of Faleasiu Uta, Malie, Vaitele Tai and Sapunaoa. (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 the charge of burglary, the accused is convicted sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment. For the charge of intentional damage, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment. For each charge of theft the accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment. All sentences to be served concurrently so that he will serve a total of 6 weeks imprisonment. This is to be followed by 6 months supervision with the special conditions of supervision that he attend and complete the 6 weeks programme for alcohol and drugs conducted by the Alcohol and Drugs Court. (Toe Afua se Taeao Fou), and he refrain from consuming alcohol. Time spent in custody to be deducted.
Representation:	F. Ioane for Prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	one charge of burglary - one of intentional damage - and theft -
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section.174- section.184(2) – sub section 161 and 165(b)
Cases cited:	Police v Ajawas - Iwikau v Police [2012] NZHC 2027
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

SULA SIAOSI male of Faleasiu Uta, Malie, Vaitele Tai and Sapunaoa.
Accused

Counsel:
F. Ioane for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 21 September 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charges

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;
   • one of intentional damage , contrary to s2) of thof the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment;
   • Four counts of theft;
     1. Two pursuant to ss 161 and 165(b) Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment;
     2. One pursuant to s161 and 165(c) with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment; and
        
     3. One pursuant to s 161 and 165(d) with a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment.
2. He pleaded guilty to all six charges on 29 August 2016.

The offending

3. According to the summary of facts admitted by the accused, on 17 August 2016 at around 3am, the accused entered the premises of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) at Vaitele. Once inside he damaged two drawers valued at $500.00 each and stole;
   1. A digital camera valued at $1200.00;
   2. One usb wire valued at $20.00;
   100. Cash of $50.00;
   4. Digital video camera valued at $2300.00;
   5. One black usb wire valued at $20.00;
   6. One headset valued at $50.00;
   7. Sunglasses valued at $12.00;
   8. Huawei cell phone valued at $600.00;
   9. Two sets ear piece valued at $20.00;
   10. Black hand bag valued at $140.00;
   11. Portable charger valued at $120.00;
   50. One black belt valued at $50.00; and
   13. Samsung battery valued at $20.00.
4. The total value of the damaged property is $1000.00. The victim is the LTA.
5. There are three victims of his theft as the property belonged to three LTA employees.
6. The accused was caught by a security guard as he was trying to run away. The stolen property was all recovered.

Background of the accused

7. The accused is 20 years old, single and lives with his parents at Faleasiu.
8. He finished school at Year 11. He had had paid employment but decided to stay home and render service to his family through household chores.
9. His aunty told Probation that the accused is a reliable and hardworking person.
10. The accused told Probation that prior to the offending, he had been drinking alcohol with his friends. He recalls waking up in front of a shop next to LTA. He then climbed over the LTA fence and walked through the front door which was open. He admits taking all the property for which he is charged. As he was climbing back over the fence, he was caught by a security guard.
11. He has not apologised to LTA.
12. The accused is a first offender.

The Victim

13. There is a statement from the CEO of LTA saying that the accused also damaged a cyber shot camera valued at $1200.00, in addition to the damaged drawers valued at $1000.00 in total.
14. To date, he says that the accused has not returned to apologise or pay for any of the damage, and he seeks full payment for the damaged items.
15. There is no Victim impact report for the victims of the theft.

The Aggravating Features of the Offending

16. It is always an aggravating feature if there is an invasion of a home or business. In this case, the accused went into the premises of the LTA.
17. It is aggravating that the value of the damaged property was $2,200.00, a significant amount. This is damage that must be repaired and replaced by the LTA.

Mitigating Features of the offending

18. It is mitigating that all the stolen property was recovered.

Mitigating factors

19. The only mitigating factor is that the accused entered early guilty pleas to his charges.

Discussion

20. Prosecution has recommended a sentence of imprisonment. Probation recommends a community based sentence.
21. The case of Police v Ajawas which cites the categories of burglaries in Iwikau v Police [2012] NZHC 2027, says that for first time burglars, a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed but frequently this was not the case.
22. The fact that the accused had been drinking prior to the offending is not an excuse nor is it a mitigating factor.
23. Having considered the aggravating factors relating to the offending as well as taking into account the sentencing objectives of retribution, deterrence, the need for protection of society, and rehabilitation, I have decided that it is appropriate to impose a custodial sentence in this case followed by a term of supervision. A custodial sentence will deter the accused from further offending. Supervision is to ensure that the accused at his young age receives some rehabilitation around alcohol consumption.
24. The starting point for sentence is 8 weeks imprisonment. I will deduct 2 weeks for his early guilty pleas. That leaves 6 weeks imprisonment.

Sentence

25. For the charge of burglary, the accused is convicted sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment.
26. For the charge of intentional damage, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment.
27. For each charge of theft the accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.
28. All sentences to be served concurrently so that he will serve a total of 6 weeks imprisonment. This is to be followed by 6 months supervision with the special conditions of supervision that he attend and complete the 6 weeks programme for alcohol and drugs conducted by the Alcohol and Drugs Court. (Toe Afua se Taeao Fou), and he refrain from consuming alcohol.
29. Time spent in custody to be deducted.
    

JUSTICE TAFAOIMALO TUALA WARREN