Police v Suafo'a [2021] WSSC 48 (7 September 2021)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Suafo’a [2021] WSSC 48

Case name:	Police v Suafo’a
Citation:	[2021] WSSC 48
Decision date:	7 September 2021
Parties:	POLICE v FILIPI VAEAGI SUAFO’A male of Salelavalu, Savaii
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S 1012/21
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	CHIEF JUSTICE
On appeal from:
Order:	- The Court therefore convicts you of the 3 charges of forgery and the 3 charges of theft as a servant and sentences you to 12 months of supervision, you must report to the Probation officer within 24 four hours.
Representation:	L I Atoa for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	breach of trust –forgery – theft – mitigating features – sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Sentencing Act 2016
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

FILIPI VAEAGI SUAFO’A of Salelavalu, Savaii
Accused

Counsel:
L I Atoa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 7 September 2021

SENTENCE OF PERESE CJ

1. The defendant is a 32 year old male of Salelavalu, Savaii. He is married with four children. He has pleaded guilty to three charges of forgery and three charges of theft as a servant during his employment as a bank teller with the ANZ bank at the Saleleloga branch.
2. On three seperate occassions the defendant, whose seniority as a bank teller allowed him to view all clients bank account balances and signatures, forged three withdrawals slips and then used those withdrawals to steal money out of one clients bank account. The defendant did this on 30 September 2020 stealing $2,000.00; 7 October 2020 - $2,200.00; and 6 November 2020 - $1,900.00. The total amount of money stolen was $6,100.00.
3. The only reason given for the defendants actions was that he forged the ANZ clients signature and stole that clients money – for his personal use.
4. The hall mark of the defendant’s offending is that he breached his special position of trust to give effect to his dishonesty.
5. I have had the chance to consider the following documents:
   1. The Summary of Facts, dated 6 September 2021, with which the defendant agrees;
   2. The Probation Report dated 7 September 2021;
   3. The Prosecution’s Sentencing memorandum dated 6 September 2021;
   4. The victim impact report, dated 6 September 2021.
6. The defendant has made submissions from the dock.

Sentencing

7. The prosecutions sentencing memorandum accurately sets out the relevant sentencing purposes and principles under sections 5 and 6 the Sentencing Act 2016. Of particular relevance in terms of purpose is the need to deter the defendant and others from committing a similar offence.
8. The aggravating features of the defendant’s offending are the significant breach of trust. The defendant was someone who was able to access client’s personal information, and the bank reposed trust in him to act with complete honesty. He failed.
9. The mitigating features of the offending is that the defendant accepted responsibility for the offending following the Bank’s investigation. He has apologised to the Bank and his samll group of co-workers, and he paid back the money in full soon after. Once the Prosecution had been able to finalise the charges against him, the defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.
10. The defendant’s offending appears to me to be most out of character. The Probation service report sets out that he is a man who has worked hard and successfully to educate himself, improving his chances of finding good work to support his family. Yet, for some reason, after working at the ANZ for seven years, presumably with a good clean employment history, over a period of a few months stole large sums of money from a client’s account. I accept that the defendant is remorseful, and no doubt considers that he has acted in the most profoundly stupid way when he must have known that he would found out.
11. I accept the sincerity of the testimonials which have been filed on the defendant’s behalf and accept that up until relatively recently, the defendant has led an umblemished life. I am impressed with the report provided by the ANZ, the victim, wherein it is said that the defendant’s apology to the team and to ANZ was sincere and accepted. I also note the letter from Rev Taeao Matua, the defendant’s Minister at the Salelavalu Parish. He says that you are a trusted person, having held the post of Treasurer for the Parish for the past 5 years. He says you are person who has some talents and qualifications for the betterment of your service in the family and the community; and that you hold the ecclesiastical position of “leader” in your Church, which is a Methodist Church.
12. The prosecution make a strong point that a deterrence sentence should be imposed – one of imprisonment. The prosecution submits that a starting point for a term of imprisonment should be around 18 months.
13. If I were to accept that as a starting point, I would give discounts of a third for the defendant’s early guilty plea, a further 6 months for the fact that the funds were promptly repaid. That would leave a sentence of imprisonment of 6 months. From that I would be inclined to deduct a further 3 months on account of the defendant’s remorse and his previous good record. That would leave a term of imprisonment of 3 months.
14. But, I am not going to sentence this defendant to jail, but instead I consider that in this case, the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2016 are best served by a sentence to a period of supervision of 12 months. As I have said earlier, I consider that his offending appears very much out of character, as described by those who have spoken for him, and by the nature of his personal circumstances. It is likely that he will need to work very hard to come back from his foolishness, and it maybe that he wont be able to do that, but I would hope that a period of supervision will help him to come to grips with why he acted as he did, gain insight into his behaviour and move forward positively as a contributing member of the community.
15. The Court therefore convicts you of the 3 charges of forgery and the 3 charges of theft as a servant and sentences you to 12 months of supervision, you must report to the Probation officer within 24 four hours.

CHIEF JUSTICE