Police v Soloa [2016] WSSC 32 (11 March 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tasesa SOLOA & Anor [2016] WSSC 32

Case name:	Police v Tasesa SOLOA & Anor
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 32
Decision date:	11 March 2016
Parties:	Police (Informant) and Tasesa Faaga SOLOA, male of Tafitoala & Uafato & Fetu Vise PATEA, female of Tafitoala & Uafato
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Laulusāmanaia Justice Mata Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendants are convicted and sentenced as follows: each defendant is convicted and sentence to six (6) months’ suspended sentence
Representation:	Ms F Ioane for the Prosecution Ms Peniamina & Ms Tuioti for the Defendants.
Catchwords:	Theft – result of a family dispute – non-custodial sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	Police v Finau [2014] WSSC 65 (5 November 2014)
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

TASESA FAAGA SOLOA, male of Tafitoala & Uafato
FETU VISE PATEA, female of Tafitoala & Uafato
Defendants

Counsel:
Ms F Ioane for the Prosecution
Ms Peniamina & Ms Tuioti for the Defendants.

Sentence: 11 March 2016

SENTENCING OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

1. The defendants appear on one charge of theft that they are jointly charged with. The maximum penalty is an imprisonment term of seven (7) years.

The offending:

2. The defendants are husband and wife with four children.
3. The defendant Fetu Patea and the complainant are first cousins. The defendants lived at Fagaloa on the complainant’s land and rendered ‘tautua’ on behalf of the complainant to the village. They also at the same time looked after the complainant’s property as the complainant himself lives at Lotopa.
4. A dispute or differences occurred between the defendants and the complainant which resulted in the defendants moving to Tafitoala to live. It was during this time that the defendants dismantled wooden timber floors; iron roofs from three (3) faleoo used as beach fales belonging to the complainant plus a tarpaulin and took them. These properties, valued at $1,382, have been recovered and returned to the complainant.
5. It seemed from the pre-sentence report that the offending is a result of a family dispute.
6. The defendants are first offenders and from the testimonials from the faifeau, the family matai and pulenu’u, the defendants rendered good service to the village, to the family at Fagaloa and also to the church. They are also hardworking people. They live off the land by making and selling handicrafts to provide for their family. These testimonials confirm the sort of people the defendants are in that they are people of good character.
7. The defendant Tasesa Soloa told probation in the pre-sentence report that he regrets what he did at the time.
8. Although the defendants have not apologised to the complainant, the Court will not take this as the defendants not being remorseful but that the reason may be that the relationship between the defendants and the complainant is still very tense and volatile.
9. The only aggravating feature of this offending is that they purposely dismantled the items from the beach fales with the idea of taking them to where they were relocating.
10. Although both counsels for the defendants in their submissions only looked at a term of imprisonment referring to the case of Police v Finau (5 November 2014) the circumstances of that case is quite different from the present case.
11. The prosecution on the other hand seeks a non-custodial sentence of supervision.
12. In light of the circumstances of this case a custodial sentence is not appropriate.
13. The defendants are convicted and sentenced as follows: each defendant is convicted and sentence to six (6) months’ suspended sentence.
    

__________________________
JUSTICE TUATAGALOA