Police v Taua [2021] WSSC 19 (22 April 2021)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taua [2021] WSSC 19

Case name:	Police v Taua
Citation:	[2021] WSSC 19
Decision date:	22 April 2021
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) v MIKAELE LALOTOA TAUA TUANOFAGA aka TOA TA’UA aka KOA TAU’A aka TOA SEVE aka TOA OLIANA aka ALALATOA TAUA male of Leauvaa. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S128/21, S113/21
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	On the charge of burglary convicted and sentenced to three (3) years in prison. On the charge of theft noting that all properties have been recovered a start point of two (2) years in prison minus six (6) months for the defendants guilty plea convicted and sentenced to eighteen (18) months in prison, concurrent term.
Representation:	L Faasii for prosecution Defendant unrepresented
Catchwords:	-burglary – theft – previous convictions
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

MIKAELE LALOTOA TAUA TUANOFAGA aka TOA TA’UA aka KOA TAU’A aka TOA SEVE aka TOA OLIANA aka ALALATOA TAUA male of Leauvaa.
Defendant

Counsel:
L Faasii for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 22 April 2021

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one (1) count of burglary and one count of theft, namely that at Fugalei on 31 December 2020 he entered the house of the complainant and stole various items to a value of $2,094.60. Items listed as a pair of earphones, women’s perfume, a bottle of essence, three (3) T-Shirts and one (1) black bag.
2. The Police summary of facts which the defendant admits says he is a 45-year-old male of Leauva’a and the complainant is a 24-year-old Chinese, the owner of a restaurant at Fugalei. The defendant told the Court he did not break into the premises but when he entered the property the door was unlocked, he simply walked in. While there he removed the properties referred to earlier but was spotted by one of the restaurant employees.
3. Police were called and when they came there they found the said properties in the defendants pockets and on his person. These properties were eventually returned to the owner. The defendant was charged and as mentioned pleaded guilty to all charges against him.
4. He has a long list of previous convictions for this kind of offending including having previously served much jail time for said offences. Quite clearly the defendant must receive a jail term for this current offending and I am sure he understands the reasons why. The defendant is a “master of burglary and theft” and he must know that every time he does this he gets sent back to prison. It is important that the public be protected from professional criminals like this.
5. Burglary carries a maximum penalty of ten (10) years in prison. Considering the circumstances of this matter a four (4) start point is appropriate and this reflects the defendants bad previous history. The only deduction the defendant is eligible for is his guilty plea because it has saved some time and resources of the court. For that I will deduct the usual term of one-quarter (¼) namely one (1) year, leaves three (3) years in prison.
6. On the charge of burglary convicted and sentenced to three (3) years in prison.
7. On the charge of theft noting that all properties have been recovered a start point of two (2) years in prison minus six (6) months for the defendants guilty plea convicted and sentenced to eighteen (18) months in prison, concurrent term.
8. O tuli sou fa’asalaga i le taimi nei pe leai? (Defendant: Lau afioga ma le fa’aaloalo e leai). Ia o le taimi la lea sa e nofo taofia ai e tatau ona toese mai le vaitaim lea ua e nofo sala ai i le toese mo kalepega fale lea. O lona uiga e tolu (3) tausaga ae toese ai aso lea na e taofia ai e fa’atalitali ai le mataupu lenei.

JUSTICE NELSON