Police v Lefaoseu [2019] WSSC 62 (9 August 2019)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Case name:	Police v Lefaoseu.

Citation:	[2019] WSSC 62

Decision date:	9 August 2019

Parties:	POLICE v VIRGINIA MERISELEISA LEFAOSEU female of Maagao and Auala AND SEFU LEFAOSEU a.k.a TONY LEFAOSEU male of Maagao and Lalomauga.

Sentencing date(s):	9 August 2019

File number(s):

Jurisdiction:	Criminal

Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu

Judge(s):	JUSTICE LEIATAUALESA DARYL MICHAEL CLARKE

On appeal from:

Order:	- In respect of you Setu, on all charges, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision on the condition that you carry out: (a) 150 hours of community work as directed by the Probation Service which is to include speaking to youths, church and other groups as directed by the probation services about offences of dishonesty and your experiences with the Police and Courts. - For you Virginia, you are convicted and sentenced 12 months supervision and ordered to carry out: (a) 125 hours of community work as directed by the probation service and which is also to include speaking to youth, church and other groups as directed by the probation service about offences of dishonesty and your experiences with the Police and the Court; and (b) such other programs as directed by the probation service. - It is my hope Setu and Virginia that by doing this, others will not follow the path that you have taken. And something positive will therefore come out of your own experiences and you will give back to the community.
Representation:	Q Sauaga for Prosecution Accuseds self-re-presented

Catchwords:	false Police Clearance Report – forgery – offences of dishonesty – premeditation – using forged documents with the intention –

Words and phrases:	forgery of government documents;
Legislation cited:

Cases cited:	Police v Su’a Police v Tevesi

Summary of decision:

[1] Virginia and Setu, you both appear for sentencing on three charges of forgery and three charges of using forged documents with the intention that it be used or acted upon as set out in the Charging Document dated 8th July 2019 and more particularly set out in the Amended Summary of Facts.

[2] This offending is concerned of your use of forged documents submitted to try and secure the use of your Pastor’s vehicles for the South Pacific Games 2019.

[3] According to the Prosecution summary of facts accepted by you both, you decided to submit the application for the vehicles to be used in the South Pacific Games. As part of the application, a police clearance report was required to be submitted with the application. The police policy regarding this report is that it requires three days to be completed. In terms of your criminal record Setu, you had from 2013 and 2015. Because of time restrictions in terms of completing the paper work for the police clearance report, you Virginia acted on instructions from Setu and created three false clearance reports. As set out in paragraph 7 of the amended summary of facts. You then both submitted the forged and false documents to the South Pacific Games Authorities with the intention they act on those false documents.

[4] Materially, in relation to the false Police Clearance Report for you Setu, your prior convictions for the overloading of your bus was removed from your forged police clearance report so that it appeared that you did not have any prior convictions associated with your role as a bus driver.

[5] Virginia, you are a 25 year old female of Maagao and Auala and married to Setu. You are employed as an Administration Officer at the All Saints Anglican School. Your Pre-Sentence Report states that you have two children and that you are currently pregnant, wh8ich you told me you are 6 months pregnant.

[6] Setu, you are 38 years old of Maagao and Lalomauga and employed as a bus driver by your Pastor. According to your Pre-Sentence Report, your children are aged 3 and 4. Your pre-sentence report states that you live with your lay preacher at the Pentecostal Church and accordingly to your Pastor, you are both leaders of the Church Choir and the Youth Group.

[7] A Victim Impact Report has been provided by the Ministry of Police. That victim impact report speaks of the loss of revenue from the ministry as a result of these applications not processed. The victim impact report also speaks of your misuse of or forgery of government documents.

[8] The aggravating features of your offending is the clear premeditation involved.

[10] In terms of you Virginia, you are a first offender. For you Setu, you have prior convictions for traffic matters. These are however different matters and therefore these will not be taken into account as aggravating factors personal to you.

[11] In terms of the mitigating factors that I take into account in sentencing I’ve take the following into account:

[12] There are no aggravating factors personal to you both as you are first offenders.

[13] Virginia, you work for the Anglican Church and are a Choir and Youth Group leader for your Pentecostal Church. You Setu also are said to be a Youth Group leader and choir leader as well as a Lay Preacher. Despite these leadership roles, you both knowingly and together acted dishonestly and deceptively by taking an earlier Prior Conviction Record belonging to Setu to recreate and forge a similar document to mislead the South Pacific Games Authority.

[14] When you committed your offending, I have no doubt that both of you knew that what you did was dishonest and wrong. Yet, despite knowing that you shouldn’t create the forged documents, you did so nevertheless and submitted them for the tender in an effort to secure a contract for the SPG. It is important that people like yourselves lead by example. Our youth who you preach to look up to you both. When you preach, they should not be hollow words that come from you but words of sincerity and meaning that you both live by.

[15] For you Virginia, you will get the benefit of the doubt that you did not know about Setu’s earlier convictions. Your culpability is also lower because you were instructed by Setu. However, you Setu knew about your earlier convictions for overloading of the buses. You did not make sure that those were disclosed on the forged documents. Why did you not disclose those prior convictions? It was because it would jeopardize the chances of securing the contracts for the SPG and the use of the buses.

[16] Prosecution seeks an imprisonment term with a start point of 2 ½ years. The cases however that prosecution refer to and rely on for a custodial sentence are quite different to your case which involve the creation and use of forged documents to obtain land or money dishonestly. The culpability in those cases are significantly more serious than in your and which in your case, it was to have the benefit of being considered for a contract that you would in the end have to perform. I bear in mind in saying that that you removed the prior conviction from what was submitted.

[17] In my view, your case is more similar to Police v Tevesi though in your case, you didn’t obtain money. In Police v Su’a, a non-custodial sentence was imposed though the personal circumstances of the defendant there was quite different to your circumstances. In my view, your offending in the scale of offending of this nature is at the lower end of gravity and a non-custodial sentence is appropriate given not only the circumstances of your offending but also your personal circumstances. As the Court have said on earlier occasions a deterrence sentence can also be imposed by way of a non-custodial sentence.

[18] In reaching the conclusion that I have reached, I note that offences of dishonesty are very common and particular, amongst the youth of our community. In my view, you can give back to the community and to our youth by speaking to them about the importance of honesty and what you have experienced from your arrest and these Court proceedings. My sentence will therefore incorporate this in the hope that with you speaking to our youths they will not travel the same path that you have walked.

[19] In respect of you Setu, on all charges, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision on the condition that you carry out: (a) 150 hours of community work as directed by the Probation Service which is to include speaking to youths, church and other groups as directed by the probation services about offences of dishonesty and your experiences with the Police and Courts.

[20] For you Virginia, you are convicted and sentenced 12 months supervision and ordered to carry out: (a) 125 hours of community work as directed by the probation service and which is also to include speaking to youth, church and other groups as directed by the probation service about offences of dishonesty and your experiences with the Police and the Court; and (b) such other programs as directed by the probation service.

[21] It is my hope Setu and Virginia that by doing this, others will not follow the path that you have taken. And something positive will therefore come out of your own experiences and you will give back to the community.

Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Lefaoseu [2019] WSSC 62 (9 August 2019)