Police v Wulf [2022] WSSC 18 (6 May 2022)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Wulf [2022] WSSC 18 (06 May 2022)

Case name:	Police v Wulf
Citation:	[2022] WSSC 18
Decision date:	06 May 2022
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) v PAUL JUNIOR WULF, male of Satapuala (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Niavā Mata Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment for each offending (x2) to be served concurrently. Less any time in custody.
Representation:	T. Sasagi for Prosecution Defendant appears in Person
Catchwords:	Theft as a servant – early guilty plea – custodial sentence.
Words and phrases:	Stolen property not recovered – previous conviction of similar nature – no restitution.
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:

PAUL JUNIOR WULF, male of Satapuala

Defendant

Counsel: T. Sasagi for Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Date: 06 May 2022

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant appears for sentencing on two charges of theft while an employee of the Samoa Trust Estates Corporation.
2. The defendant pleaded guilty to stealing two water pumps each valued at SAT$6,500.⁰⁰ on 22 February 2022 and 01 March 2022.
3. Both water pumps were not recovered.
4. The defendant has a previous conviction of similar offending in 2006 and is not a person of prior good character.
5. The defendant is confirmed to have apologised to his former employer (via CEO – Patea Malo Setefano) but the employer said that Paul’s offending has cost them with a huge loss of SAT$13,000.⁰⁰ for the water pumps he stole, equipment that is much needed by the employer in their line of work. The employer also confirmed that the defendant has not made any offer of restitution.
6. From the summary of facts and pre-sentence report, the defendant had used his employment status as storehouse keeper to access the said equipment. He did not do it once but twice. There is always a breach of trust involved in theft as a servant charge. There is not only pre-meditation but also opportunistic in the commission of the offences.
7. The only mitigating factors in the defendant’s favour is his early guilty plea and the apology.
8. The appropriate sentence is imprisonment with a starting point of 2 years for each offending; less 6 months’ months for the apology and 25% discount of early guilty plea (5 months). This leaves’ 13 months.
9. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment for each offending (x2) to be served concurrently. Less any time in custody.
   

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA