Police v Faafetai [2020] WSSC 25 (16 March 2020)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faafetai [2020] WSSC 25

Case name:	Police v Faafetai
Citation:	[2020] WSSC 25
Decision date:	16 March 2020
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) and MISIPATI TAULAPAPA FAAFETAI, male of Vaitele-uta & Fogasavaii (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Mata Keli Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows: (i) 25 September 2019: a starting point of 18 months, less 25% for early guilty plea (which is 5 months), this leaves 13 months’ imprisonment.; (ii) 21 January 2019: a starting point of 8 months, less 25% for early guilty plea (2 months), this leaves 6 months’ imprisonment; (iii) 23 January 2019: a starting point of 16 months, less 25% for early guilty plea (4 months), this leaves 12 months’ imprisonment. All three offendings were carried out on different occasions or days, targeting the same victim without due regard. The defendant’s terms of imprisonment are to be cumulative. This means that the defendant is to serve a total of 2 years and 7 months’ imprisonment. Less time in custody.
Representation:	V. Faasii for Prosecution Defendant appears unrepresented
Catchwords:	burglary & theft – early guilty plea – previous convictions – custodial sentence
Words and phrases:	same shop burgled on three separate occasions
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

MISIPATI TAULAPAPA FAAFETAI, male of Vaitele-uta & Fogasavaii

Defendant

Counsel: V. Faasii for Prosecution
Defendant appears unrepresented

Date: 16 March 2020

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant appears for sentencing of offending committed on three separate occasions of Fia’s Shop at Vaitele:
   • (i) On 25 September 2019 the defendant burgled and stole goods valued at $864 which penalty is not more than 2 years’ imprisonment;
   • (ii) On 21 January 2020 the defendant again burgled the same supermarket and stole goods to the value of $442.50 which penalty for theft is maximum one (1) year imprisonment; and
   • (iii) On 23 January 2020, the defendant went to the same shop and again burgled and stole goods to the value of $700 which attracts a penalty of maximum 2 years’ imprisonment.
2. The defendant for the first offending committed on 25 September 2019 was referred to the Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC); he was released out on bail to attend a Family Group Conference required by ADC but he never came back or appeared in ADC as required. A warrant of arrest was issued by the ADC on 26 November 2019.
3. The defendant was declined from ADC on 10 March 2020 and referred for sentence.
4. The defendant on this occasion stole goods to the value of $864.00 which penalty will be imprisonment not more than 2 years. The defendant at the time was said to have been employed by the victim (Fia’s Supermarket).
5. The defendant has re-offended with offending of the same nature and the same victim as follows:
   • On 21 January 2020 the defendant again burgled the same supermarket and stole goods to the value of $442.50 which penalty for theft is maximum one (1) year imprisonment.
   • On 23 January 2020, the defendant went to the same shop and again burgled and stole goods to the value of $700 which attracts a penalty of maximum 2 years’ imprisonment.
6. The offence of burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; while the theft charges, the imprisonment term varies from one (1) to two (2) years’ imprisonment depending on the value of the goods stolen.
7. The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s early guilty plea to each set of offending.
8. The defendant targeted the same supermarket three times. The owner in the victim impact report says the continuous burglaries and thefts upon their shop has caused a rift between him and his wife and is very discouraging to the point that he is having thoughts of giving up.
9. The summary of facts shows that the defendant targeted the victim’s shop in the early hours of the morning between 3.00am – 6.00am and the good stolen on the last two occasions was alcohol and food. The offending in 2019 was cash and cigarettes.
10. The defendant has a previous conviction of the same offending in 2018 to which he was given a non-custodial sentence. Since then the defendant has continued to re-offend without due regard to people’s properties and to the law. A custodial sentence is warranted.
11. The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
    • (i) 25 September 2019: a starting point of 18 months, less 25% for early guilty plea (which is 5 months), this leaves 13 months’ imprisonment.;
    • (ii) 21 January 2019: a starting point of 8 months, less 25% for early guilty plea (2 months), this leaves 6 months’ imprisonment;
    • (iii) 23 January 2019: a starting point of 16 months, less 25% for early guilty plea (4 months), this leaves 12 months’ imprisonment.
12. All three offendings were carried out on different occasions or days, targeting the same victim without due regard.
13. The defendant’s terms of imprisonment are to be cumulative. This means that the defendant is to serve a total of 2 years and 7 months’ imprisonment. Less time in custody.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA