Police v Lautoka [2016] WSSC 35 (14 March 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tekauita LAUTOKA [2016] WSSC 35

Case name:	Police v Tekauita LAUTOKA
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 35
Decision date:	14 March 2016
Parties:	Police (Informant) and Tekauita LAUTOKA, female of Tiavi and Vaisala Savaii (Defendant)
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 defendant is convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Any time in custody to be deducted from this term.
Representation:	Ms F Ioane for the Prosecution Defendant appears in Person
Catchwords:	Burglary – theft – previous convictions of same offending – custodial sentence – previous breach of supervision term twice
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

TEKAUITA LAUTOKA, female of Tiavi & Vaisala Savaii
Defendant

Counsel:
Ms F Ioane for the Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Sentence: 14 March 2016

SENTENCING OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

1. Tekauita, you are to be sentenced on one charge of Burglary which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and one charge of theft of properties with a total value of $1,259 and as such carries a maximum penalty of seven (7) years’ imprisonment.

The offending:

2. You have confirmed the summary of facts by the prosecution which says that:
   • On 15 December 2015 you broke into a house at Vaitele-fou and stole:
     • − a blackberry mobile valued at $719.00;
     • − a pair of sport shoes valued at $200.00;
     • − four (4) men’s perfumes valued at $340.00.
   • You broke into the house by using a 44 gallon to climb on and you ripped the screen wire and removed louvers to gain access into the house.
   • Your boyfriend at the time confirmed with the police that he saw you with the blackberry mobile phone. You were then taken into police custody and charged.

The accused:

3. You are 23 years’ old and this is not your first time in Court. You were charged with similar offences in March 2013 where a custodial sentence followed by supervision was imposed. However, by October 2014 you had breached your supervision terms twice and the District Court then sentenced you to three months’ imprisonment for breaching your supervision term.
4. The pre-sentence report has your step-father and mother telling Probation that you are disobedient with a very bad attitude. They also say that you have left home and freely wander around with friends. They ask the Court for an appropriate penalty so you could learn a lesson.

The victim:

5. The victim is a 52 year old male who is employed by the Pacific Oil Company Limited and lives in Vaitele-fou.
6. The victim impact report says that the victim has incurred expenses to buy a mesh wire which would provide more security to replace the ripped screen wire. The victim also says that he now worries and panics knowing that his house has been broken into.

Aggravating factors:

7. The aggravating feature personal to the defendant as offender is her previous conviction of similar offending.
8. The aggravating features of her offending are:
   1. Home invasion at night time. The defendant told Probation that it was after drinking at Johnny’s Bar that she went and broke into this house. Although, there may not have been someone home at the time, the presence of the mobile phone and other properties meant that someone lives there.
   2. Pre-meditation: there is an element of pre-meditation or planning involved. It seemed from the victim impact report that the defendant impersonated as the victim’s brother in law’s girlfriend. The defendant seemed to have knowledge of the victim and his movements. She did not just happen to be by the house; she went there deliberately or with the intent to break in.
   3. Value of the properties stolen: The blackberry mobile was recovered and returned but the other properties with a total value of $540 were not.
   4. Lack of remorse and no regard for the law by the defendant given her previous record.

Mitigating feature:

9. The only mitigating feature is the defendant’s early guilty pleas.

Decision:

10. There is no doubt that the sentence is a custodial the only question is how long.
11. The leading offence is burglary which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
12. I will take the starting point of 12 months and upgrade it to six months for previous offending; less 1/3 discount for early plea, this leaves 12 months’ imprisonment.
13. For theft, a starting point of eight months with an upgrade of three months for previous offending; less 1/3 discount for early plea, this leaves eight months’ imprisonment.
14. The sentences are to be cumulative which means the defendant is convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Any time in custody to be deducted from this term.
    

---------------------------------------

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA