Police v Mulitalo [2022] WSSC 30 (15 June 2022)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Mulitalo [2022] WSSC 30

Case name:	Police v Mulitalo
Citation:	[2022] WSSC 30
Sentence Date::	15 June 2022
Parties:	POLICE v AMANDA CECILIA MALU MULITALO female of Lufilufi, Amaile Aleipata and Lano Savaii..
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S491/22. S492/22. S493/22. S494/22. S496/22. S510/22
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUSTICE FEPULEA’I A. ROMA
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to one-month imprisonment on each charge. All sentences are to be served concurrently.
Representation:	T. Sasagi for Prosecution Defendant in person
Catchwords:	Aggravating factors –theft as a servant – breach of trust – maximum penalty – mitigating factors – remorse –
Words and phrases:	such cases involve breach of trust – no exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a departure from the general sentencing practice of the Court
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s. 161 & 165 (c)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Informant

AND

AMANDA CECILIA MALU MULITALO female of Lufilufi, Amaile Aleipata and Lano Savaii..
Defendant

Counsel:
T. Sasagi for Prosecution
Defendant in person

Sentence: 15 June 2022

SENTENCING OF JUSTICE ROMA

Charges

[1] You appear this afternoon for sentence on 6 counts of theft as a servant which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment for each charge. You pleaded guilty to all charges on the 23^rd May 2022 when the charges were finalised.

Offending

[2] The complainant is the ANZ Bank (Samoa) Ltd for whom you worked as a teller in 2019. At the time of offending you were working in the customer service and call centre and were responsible for processing various bank cards. In September 2021 without authority, you processed an instant debit visa card for a person named Anina who resides permanently overseas. On 6 separate occasions between 30^th September and 4^th October 2021, you dishonestly used the card to withdraw sums of $200.00, $100.00, $250.00, $100.00, $150.00 and $200.00 from different ATMs in town and kept all for your personal use. The owner of the account contacted the bank when she was blocked from accessing it online. She denied being the one withdrawing the monies. An investigation by the Bank led to the charges against you. In the pre sentence report you admit the offending and say that you had been under financial pressure to care for your mother and meet your family obligations as your husband had gone overseas on seasonal work.

The Victim

[3] The Bank confirms in a letter by its Chief Operations Officer that you have apologised. The documents before me also confirm that you have paid back the stolen amount in full.

Aggravating Factors

[4] The aggravating features of the offending are:

(i) the breach of trust;
(ii) planning and premeditation – you dishonestly processed a card and used it on several occasions to withdraw money without the account owner’s knowledge and authority;
(iii) the impact including the Bank’s loss which has been fully recovered; and the resources committed to its investigation.

Mitigating Factors

[5] I consider the following factors personal to you as offender:

(i) your guilty pleas to all 6 charges entered at the earliest opportunity;
(ii) your apology to the Bank which has been accepted;
(iii) you have made full restitution of the amount stolen;
(iv) your personal circumstances - you are 30 years of age and a mother of 6 children. You are the youngest of 4 siblings. You have had a good education. Your husband is overseas but you are currently residing with your children at his family.

Discussion

[6] The general practice in sentencing theft as a servant cases is that deterrent terms of imprisonment are imposed except in exceptional circumstances. The main reason is because such cases involve breach of trust. I have carefully considered your case. I have also considered the sentencing authorities cited by prosecution. I find that no exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a departure from the general sentencing practice of the Court. The fact there were multiple instances of your offending which would have likely continued had they not been detected early is significant.

[7] I adopt a starting point of 12 months as recommended by prosecution and make these deductions. I deduct 3 months for full restitution of the stolen sum. I deduct a further 2 months for your apology and remorse. I deduct a further 2 months for your personal circumstances including your first offender status. The remainder is 5 months. From that term I deduct 4 months for your guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity leaving one month.

Result

[8] On all 6 charges of theft as a servant you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment on each charge. All sentences are to be served concurrently.

JUSTICE FELUPEA’I A. ROMA