Police v Tautofi [2016] WSSC 82 (16 May 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tautofi and Anor [2016] WSSC 82

Case name:	Police v Tautofi and Anor
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 82
Decision date:	16 May 2016
Parties:	POLICE v PERESIA TAUTOFI male of Falefa and Lufilufi; and MISIPATI IEREMIA male of Faleapuna
Hearing date(s):	16 May 2016
File number(s):	S334/16; S384/16
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	In the Supreme Court of Samoa
Judge(s):	JUSTICE MATA TUATAGALOA
On appeal from:
Order:	− The defendants are convicted and sentenced as follows: burglary: 6 months’ supervision; theft: 3 months’ supervision. − Both sentences to be concurrent with the following special conditions: both defendants attend the six week alcohol psycho-educational program; 40 hours’ community service each; and Any other as directed by Probation.
Representation:	L Sio for Prosecution Defendants in Person
Catchwords:	Burglary – theft – burglary of a commercial building – first offenders – early guilty plea – supervision term – apology – monetary reparation
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

PERESIA TAUTOFI male of Falefa and Lufilufi and
MISIPATI IEREMIA male of Faleapuna
Defendants

Counsel:
L Sio for Prosecution
Defendants in Person

Sentence: 16 May 2016

SENTENCING OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

1. The defendants are both appearing for sentence on burglary and theft charges of a house at Faleapuna on 11 February 2016. The defendants with two other co-defendants stole one (1) carton of chicken.

The offending:

2. The defendants had been drinking and they got hungry and decided to break into the shop.
3. The defendant Misipati with one other co-defendant went into the shop while defendant Peresia and another co-defendant remained outside as ‘lookout.’

The defendants:

4. The defendant Peresia Tautofi is 17 years’ old from the villages of Falefa and Lufilufi. He is no longer at school is unemployed but helps out his family through fishing and working the plantation. This defendant is a first offender. His mother speaks of him as reliable and quiet. The Church Minister also says the same of the defendant. His mother believes that the defendant Peresia got in trouble because of the friends he hangs out with.
5. The defendant, Misipati Ieremia is a 22 year old from the village of Faleapuna, single and also unemployed. He is said to look after his grandparents. He is also a first offender. His grandmother speaks of Misipati as trustworthy, hardworking and obedient. The Bishop of his church (Mormon) speaks of this defendant as respectful and supportive of church activities.

The aggravating features:

6. There are no aggravating features personal to the defendants. However, the aggravating features of their offending are:
   • burglary at night time;
   • burglary of a commercial building (i.e. shop);
   • damage to the shop which enabled the defendants to gain access – they used a cutter to cut the metal screen wire; and
   • it was pre-meditated.

The mitigating features:

7. The mitigating features are:
   • apology rendered;
   • money for the carton of chicken stolen was paid by Misipati and his grandmother to the victim (owner of the shop);
   • age of the defendants of 17 and 22 years old are relatively young. The Court will place weight on their age rather than on their first offender status; and
   • their early guilty pleas.

Discussion:

8. The characterization of the two defendants by their parents or grandparent and church ministers paints a picture of two people that one thinks would never do what they did, or break any law. This is a classic case of how one could be influenced by alcohol and when affiliated with the wrong people it is a combination guaranteed to end up in trouble.
9. However, the circumstances of the offending does not warrant for a custodial sentence but a supervision term where they will be made accountable for their behaviour and at the same time learn not to let alcohol control them but they control the alcohol.
10. The defendants are convicted and sentenced as follows:
    • burglary: 6 months’ supervision;
    • theft: 3 months’ supervision.
11. Both sentences to be concurrent with the following special conditions:
    • both defendants attend the six week alcohol psycho-educational program;
    • 40 hours’ community service each; and
    • Any other as directed by Probation.
      

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA