Police v Ioane [2017] WSSC 101 (18 July 2017)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Ioane [2017] WSSC 101

Case name:	Police v Ioane
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 101
Decision date:	18 July 2017
Parties:	POLICE v FEAGAI TAAPE IOANE male of Leauvaa.
Hearing date(s):	18 July 2017
File number(s):	S888/17
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	CHIEF JUSTICE SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted of the charges against him and sentenced to 9 months supervision with the special condition that he is to perform 50 hours community service as directed by the probation service
Representation:	F O Tagaloa for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Aggravating features relating to the accused as offender – aggravating features relating to the offending – burglary – intentional damage – mitigating features relating to the accused as offender – sentence – theft -
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 ss 161, 165 (d), 174 (1) (a), 184 (1) (a).
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

FEAGAI TAAPE IOANE male of Leauvaa.
Accused

Counsel: F O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 18 July 2017

S EN T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of burglary, contrary to s.174 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; one charge of theft, contrary to s.161 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment under s.165 (d); and one charge of intentional damage, contrary to s.184 (1) (a) of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years.

The offending

2. As it appears from the prosecution’s summary of facts confirmed by the accused, the complainant and the accused are next door neighbours at Leauvaa. On 13 June 2017 when the complainant, who is a school teacher, left home for school with her children, the accused went over to the complainant’s house and peered through a side window. When he saw that there was no one inside the house, he pulled and ripped three sideboards from the complainant’s house damaging those sideboards. The value of the damaged sideboards is $100.
3. The accused then went inside the complainant’s house and stole one bottle of perfume valued at $89 and two razor shavers valued at $3. The total value of the damaged and stolen items is $191.

The accused

4. The pre-sentence report shows that the accused is a 34 year old male. He is single. He works as a plantation caretaker where he often spends most of his time. He has never had any formal education in all his life. He comes from a poor family and is the youngest of his parents children. Up to now, he is still living with his parents at Leauvaa.
5. The accused’s parents have apologised to the complainant for the accused’s actions and their apology was accepted. The accused has also expressed remorse to the probation service for his actions and pleaded for leniency.
6. The accused is also a first offender. The probation service has tried several times to locate the accused’s family at Leavaa for a character testimonial but were unsuccessful.

Aggravating features in relating to the offending

7. The only aggravating feature relating to this offending is the total value of the damaged and stolen items of property which is relatively small.

Aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender

8. The accused’s previous conviction for attempted murder for which he has been serving a sentence of 11 years and 9 months imprisonment since 19 August 2016 is an aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender.

Mitigating features relating to the accused as offender

9. The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender are: (a) the apology by his parents to the complainant which was accepted, (b) the accused’s expression of remorse to the probation service, and (c) the accused’s early guilty plea.

Discussion

10. Having regard to the aggravating and mitigating features as well as the fact that the accused is a first offender, I have decided to impose a term of supervision. I am also mindful of the fact that the accused has been remanded in custody since 17 June 2017.

Result

11. The accused is convicted of the charges against him and sentenced to 9 months supervision with the special condition that he is to perform 50 hours community service as directed by the probation service.

CHIEF JUSTICE