Police v Stowers [2020] WSSC 59 (21 February 2020)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Stowers [2020] WSSC 59

Case name:	Police v Stowers
Citation:	[2020] WSSC 59
Sentence date:	21 February 2020
Parties:	POLICE v LIZA DIANA STOWERS, female of Alafua.
File number(s):	S1370/19.
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court Samoa Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Fepulea’i Ameperosa Roma
On appeal from:
Order:	On the one charge of theft as a servant, you are convicted and sentenced to 8 months supervision.
Representation:	A. Matalasi for Prosecution Defendant in person.
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:	Theft as a Servant.
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s.161 & 165(f)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

A N D

POLICE v LIZA DIANA STOWERS, female of Alafua.

Defendant

Counsel:

Ms A. Matalasi for Prosecution Defendant in person.

Sentence: 21 February 2020

ORAL SENTENCING OF JUSTICE ROMA
Charge

[1] Defendant, you appear this afternoon for sentence on one charge of theft as a servant contrary to sections 161 and 165(f), Crimes Act 2013. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. At first you denied the charge. But before trial commenced on the 31^st January 2020, you sought to vacate your denial and substitute a guilty plea to the charge.

Offending

[2] The police summary says that at the material time, you were employed as a storehand by Treasure Box Limited (victim company) which owns the Treasure Box store where you usually work and the Pearls and Rings store located at the Gold Star Building in Apia. On the 16^th March 2019, you were directed by the Manager to assist at the Pearls and Rings store as they were short-staffed. Whilst there, you took from the showcase without your employer’s knowledge and authority 2 gold wedding rings. You scratched them so that they appeared second hand and not raise suspicion.

[3] You went back to the Treasure Box store and offered for sale there both rings. You lied to the Manager that the rings belonged to one of your cousins who wanted them sold for money. The Manager agreed and bought them off you for $120.00. A week later when the supervisor of Pearls and Rings returned to work, she discovered that the rings had gone missing. In their original state the rings were worth for $400.00 each, the total value being $800.00.

[4] In the pre-sentence report you say that you acted on instructions from a co worker. That co worker denied her involvement in the offending. You admit however lying to the Manager as to the owner of the rings and received money from their sale. You further claim to have acted out of kindness to your co worker. That is a very silly excuse, because only you have ended up in Court, your co worker has not.

Accused

[5] You are a 20 year old solo mother to a 4 year old son. Two years after completion of your secondary education, you found employment with the victim company which has since your offending, been terminated. You remain unemployed up to present.

Aggravating Factors

[6] The aggravating factors are:

• (i) breach of trust;
• (ii) nature of your offending and level of dishonesty – In the brief opportunity that you were assigned temporarily to Pearls and Rings, you stole and tampered with the rings so that they appeared used, then sold it to the other branch of the same company;
• (iii) The value of the stolen items.

Mitigating Factors

[7] The mitigating factors are:

• (i) your plea of guilty;
• (ii) the apology which Probation say was confirmed by the victim company;
• (iii) your personal circumstances and previous good character including the fact you are a first offender.

Discussion

[8] Theft as a servant charges are serious and prevalent and for those reasons generally attract custodial sentences except in exceptional circumstances. In your case, prosecution recommends a non-custodial sentence. They rely Police v. Risatisone Motusaga (4 March 2019), Police v. Joe Iopu (6 May 2019), Police v. Anzac Suauu (17 June 2019) and Police v. Faamanu Laulu (15 July 2019).

[9] The value of stolen items is within the range of amounts involved in the sentencing decisions cited by prosecution, and in all, non custodial sentences of supervision were imposed. Given the aggravating and mitigating factors and the authorities referred to by prosecution I accept that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. You should consider yourself very lucky. You should also make use of this opportunity.

Sentence

[10] On the one charge of theft as a servant, you are convicted and sentenced to 8 months supervision.

JUSTICE FEPULEA’I A. ROMA