Police v Pilitati [2021] WSSC 7 (19 February 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pilitati [2021] WSSC 7

Case name:	Police v Pilitati
Citation:	[2021] WSSC 7
Decision date:	19 February 2021
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) and APISAI JOSEPH PILITATI (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Niavā Mata K. Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment for burglary and theft.
Representation:	V. Faasii for Prosecution Defendant appears in Person
Catchwords:	Burglary & theft – custodial sentence.
Words and phrases:	Exited from Alcohol and Drugs Court due to re-offending – previous conviction of similar nature.
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

APISAI JOSEPH PILITATI, male of Vaiala & Leufisa
Defendant

Counsel:
V. Faasii for Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Date: 19 February 2021

O R A L S E N T E N C E

1. This defendant appears for sentence on the charges of burglary and theft which took place on 22 November 2020 at Tanugamanono about 10-11am while the victim and his family were attending church. The defendant was on his way home following a drinking session and was walking past the victim’s property and noticed a hand held lawn cutter outside the house to which he entered the property and took it. The defendant was said to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time he committed the offence.
2. The defendant was accepted into ADC on 05 March 2019 for charges of burglary & theft and intentional damage committed on 21 January 2019. However, the defendant was exited from ADC for re-offending (the current charges).
3. The Court also noted that the defendant has a history of similar offending and according to previous pre-sentence reports, alcohol was always a factor or that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol when committing previous offences. Despite second chances given of non-custodial sentences for the defendant to reform himself, the defendant has not changed his ways but has continued to re-offend.
4. I do not accept what his sister or what other written testimonials provided say of the defendant being a ‘good person’ when his actions and behaviours proves otherwise. The Court through the ADC have tried to curb the defendant’s criminal behaviour through its programmes on the use of alcohol but this was to no avail as the defendant again re-offended.
5. From the pre-sentence report, the family itself is not playing its part in taking responsibility for the defendant’s behaviour. They cannot expect the Court to keep giving leniency to the defendant when people’s property and lives are at risk from such criminal behaviour exhibited by the defendant.
6. The defendant has current outstanding matters in the District Court that he is yet to be sentenced.
7. Given the defendant’s criminal history and continuous re-offending, the appropriate sentence is none other than a custodial sentence.
8. A starting point of 18 months is appropriate. The only mitigating factor in his favour is his early guilty plea to which 25% discount is allowed amounting to 5 months. This leaves 13 months`.
9. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment for burglary and theft.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA