Police v Ioka [2016] WSSC 210 (8 December 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Ioka [2016] WSSC 210

Case name:	Police v Ioka
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 210
Decision date:	08 December 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) and ROSALINA METALA IOKA, female of Saasaai and Falelauniu (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Mata Keli Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The Court takes the offending of theft as a servant as the leading offence and the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. For the lesser offence of false accounting the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. Both sentences are to be served concurrently.
Representation:	L Sio for Prosecution R Papalii for the Defendant
Catchwords:	Theft as a servant – false accounting – breach of trust – substantial amount stolen – no reparation – first offender – early guilty plea – custodial sentence
Words and phrases:	Request for imprisonment term to be deferred
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 ss.161;165(e);198 Sentencing Act 2016 s. 63 Prisons Parole Board Act 1977 s. 10(3)
Cases cited:	Police v Kaleopa [2015] WSSC 121
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

ROSALINA METALA IOKA, female of Saasaai & Falelauniu
Defendant

Counsel:
L Sio for Prosecution
R Papalii for the Defendant

Sentence: 08 December 2016

SENTENCING OF TUATAGALOA J

The charges:

1. The defendant appears for sentencing on one count of theft as a servant and the corresponding charge of false accounting.
2. The charge of theft as a servant under ss. 161 & 165(e) of the Crimes Act 2013 carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The corresponding charge of false accounting under s. 198 carries the maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
3. The amount stolen by the defendant on 30 July 2016 is $125,938.04.

The offending:

4. The summary of facts by the prosecution of the offending was read out and confirmed by the defendant. The summary of facts basically says:
   1. The defendant was employed by the Samoa Commercial Bank (SCB). She was the SCB supervisor for its branch cash vault at Vaitele.
   2. The defendant on 30 July 2016 stole $125,938.04 from the SCB branch cash vault at Vaitele.
   100. The defendant altered the amount already entered by one of its employees on the tally system that records the bank’s daily transactions to facilitate her stealing the money.

Submissions by counsel:

5. Counsel for the defendant in her mitigation concedes that the circumstances of the offending and the amount taken the Court would most likely impose a custodial sentence. Counsel also asks if the Court would consider deferring the starting date of sentence of imprisonment until after Christmas and New Year’s.
6. The prosecution in their submissions referred to the case of Police v Kaleopa^[1] of similar circumstances and amount and asks the Court to adopt the 5 years starting point.

The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR):

7. The PSR provides the background of the defendant. It appears that the defendant had a good educational background having completed her secondary education. The defendant also had a good employment history of about 10 years with the Samoa Commercial Bank and attained management level position. There are positive testimonials from the defendant’s sister, her faifeau and a matai Sa’o of her village of Faleula.
8. The defendant is a 38 year old mother of two children.
9. The following are aggravating and mitigating factors from counsels’ submissions:

The aggravating factors:

10. The following are aggravating factors of this offending:
    1. There was a significant breach of trust. The defendant was the supervisor of the bank’s branch at Vaitele-tai. She was in a senior role and was entrusted by her employer.
    2. The offending was pre-meditated. The defendant altered the information on the banks tally system to facilitate her stealing the money.
    100. The amount stolen of $125,938.04 is a very significant amount. The big amount was stolen on one day unlike the offending of the same type where such amount is said to be stolen over a period of time.
    4. The defendant has not tried to make any arrangement with her employer to pay back the amount.

The mitigating factors:

11. The only mitigating factors are:
    1. The defendant is a first offender. The testimonials provided suggest that the defendant was of good character prior to the offending. The court accepts those testimonials as to the defendant’s prior character.
    2. The defendant’s early pleas of guilty.

Discussion:

12. Counsel for the defendant raised if the start of imprisonment term could be deferred until after Christmas and New Year. The Court can consider such application under s. 63 of the Sentencing Act 2016 on or upon humanitarian grounds. No such grounds were given by counsel except the application was on the ground of giving the defendant time with her family for Christmas and New Year. Therefore, the application for deferment of start of imprisonment was not considered by the Court.
13. Given the circumstances of this offending the obvious sentence is one of custodial. The Court takes the offending of theft as a servant as the leading offence and impose a 5 years starting point. The Court deducts 12 months for being a first offender and gives 25% for the early guilty plea which is also 12 months. The end sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment.
14. For the lesser offence of false accounting the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
15. Both sentences are to be served concurrently. Under s. 10(3) of the Prisons Parole Board Act 1977, the defendant is eligible to be considered on parole when she has served half of her sentence.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

---

^[1] Police v Kaleopa [2015] WSSC 121