Police v Tauanuu [2017] WSSC 141 (23 November 2017)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tauanuu [2017] WSSC 141

Case name:	Police v Tauanuu
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 141
Decision date:	23 November 2017
Parties:	POLICE v SAVELIO TAUANUU male of Lotofaga and Aleipata.
Hearing date(s):	22 November 2017
File number(s):	S943/17
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	CHIEF JUSTICE SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each of the burglary and theft charges. Both sentences are to be concurrent. - The above concurrent sentence of 12 months imprisonment is to be served concurrently with the accused’s sentence of 4 years imprisonment.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	aggravating features of the offending – burglar – mitigating features relating to the accused as offender – previous conviction for burglary – theft – starting point for sentence – sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.174, s.161, s.165 (b)
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

SAVELIO TAUANUU male of Lotofaga and Aleipata.

Counsel:
O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 23 November 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 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and one charge of theft, contrary to s.161 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, pursuant to s.165 (b). The accused had initially pleaded not guilty to the charges but on the date of trial after the other charges were withdrawn by the prosecution, the accused vacated his not guilty plea to the above charges and entered a guilty plea.

The offending

2. According to the prosecution summary of facts accepted by the accused, on 26 March 2017 around midnight, the accused went to the house of the complainant at Maagao while the complainant and his family were asleep. He removed the louvres of the window at the back of the house and went inside. He then took the following items: one HP laptop valued at $1,500, one Samsung Galaxy cellular phone valued at $600, one Dodge cellular phone valued at $600, and one Puma back bag valued at $90. The total value of these properties is $2,790. When the complainant woke up the next morning, he discovered that the above items were missing from his house. The matter was then reported to the police.

The accused

3. The accused is 17 years old, single, and unemployed. The pre-sentence report shows that he finished school at Year 11 because of his previous offences which landed him in prison in 2016.
4. The accused’s record of previous convictions shows that on 11 March 2016 he was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment on one count of burglary and one count of theft. The accused told the Court that he was released from prison in January 2017 for that sentence. On 26 March 2017 he committed the burglary and theft for which he is now appearing for sentence after he had changed his initial plea of not guilty to guilty on the date of trial. On 7 August 2017, the accused was convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on seven counts of burglary and seven counts of thefts. He told the Court that he committed those burglaries and thefts in April 2017. He is serving that sentence at the Olomanu Juvenile Centre.

The complaint

5. The complainant is a 46 year old male. He lives with his wife and children in their house at Maagao. The victim impact report shows that the laptop and the two cellular phones the accused stole from the complainant’s house were found and returned by the police to the complainant. However, the Dodge cellular phone is badly damaged that it is no longer of any use. The complainant was very much emotionally distressed by what was done by the accused.

The aggravating features relating to the offending

6. There are three aggravating features relating to this offending. The first is that it involved home invasion late at night whilst the complainant and his family were asleep. Secondly, is the value of the stolen properties. Even though the stolen laptop and two cellular phones were recovered by the police and returned to the complainant, one of the phones is damaged and is no longer of any use. The impact of the offending on the complainant is another aggravating feature of this offending.

The aggravating features relating to the accused as offender

7. The accused’s previous convictions for burglary and theft in 2016 for which he was convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment is an aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender. He was released from prison in January 2017 but he committed these offences on 26 March 2017 about two months after his release from prison.

The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender

8. The mitigating feature relating to the accused as offender is his young age and belated guilty plea which is of limited value to him.

Discussion

9. Having regard to the aggravating features of the offending, I will take 12 months as the starting point for sentence. I will add on 2 months for his previous convictions in 2016. That increases the starting point to 14 months. I will then deduct 2 months for the mitigating features relating to the accused as offender. That brings the starting point back to 12 months. The end sentence is 12 months imprisonment.
10. As the present offences were committed on 26 March 2017, and the offences of burglary and theft for which the accused is serving a sentence of 4 years imprisonment since August this year were committed in April this year, I have decided that the sentence to be imposed in this matter should be made concurrent with the sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

Result

11. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each of the burglary and theft charges. Both sentences are to be concurrent.
12. The above concurrent sentence of 12 months imprisonment is to be served concurrently with the accused’s sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE