Police v Paitomaleifi [2023] WSSC 72 (19 October 2023)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Paitomaleifi

Case name:	Police v Paitomaleifi
Citation:	[2023] WSSC 72
Decision date:	19 October 2023
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v LEAFA ALIIPUUPUU PAITOMALEIFI, female of Toamua & Salesatele
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	Charge 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 per Charging Document dated 8/5/23.
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Fepulea’i A. Roma
On appeal from:
Order:	You are convicted of all 7 charges of theft as a servant and sentenced to 2 years supervision with a condition that you complete 80 hours community work under the direction and supervision of probation. You should consider yourself very lucky. I was minded to impose an imprisonment term despite your first offender status because of the number of charges. In the end and for reasons I have referred to, I decided to accept the recommendation by prosecution. So you should make use of this opportunity and leniency granted to you. You should not come back to court for similar or any other offending.
Representation:	T. Fesili for the Prosecution Defendant in person
Catchwords:	Theft as a servant.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 161(a); 165(e).
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D

LEAFA ALIIPUUPUU PAITOMALEIFI female of Toamua and Salesatele

Defendant

Counsel: T. Fesili for the Prosecution

Defendant in person

Sentence: 19 October 2023

SENTENCE

1. You appear this afternoon for sentence on 7 charges of theft as a servant. The maximum penalty for each charge is 10 years imprisonment. You denied the charges at first but changed pleas on the 31st August 2023 when the hearing was to commence.
2. At the time of offending, you were employed as a cashier supervisor at Farmer Joe supermarket at Ululoloa. On 7 separate occasions whilst working as a cashier on the 19th February 2023, 24th February 2023, 3rd March 2023, 4th March 2023, 12th March 2023, 18th March 2023 and 26th March 2023 you dishonestly facilitated and allowed the taking of numerous goods by two particular customers without payment.
3. You did this by deliberately failing to scan items supplied to the customers so that they were not reflected in the system; by voiding on the system some of the items that were scanned and supplied to the customer; and by entering the incorrect weight of some of the items. The total loss to the company as amended by prosecution was $944.78. Following the discovery of discrepancies in the receipts, the company conducted an investigation and discovered your offending from video camera footage.
4. You told probation that you felt sorry for the first couple customer when they did not have enough money to pay for the groceries. Instead of returning some items as the couple requested, you allowed them to take the goods whilst you dishonestly manipulated the system to reflect the amount they paid, and for what you did, you received from the couple $30. You also admitted to probation that you did the same for the same couple and another customer on separate occasions.
5. The aggravating features of your offending are:
   • (i) its nature - whilst the taking of the items was not done physically by you, you deliberately and dishonestly allowed such taking by customers without payment being made;
   • (ii) the breach of trust of your former employer given your position as a supervisor;
   • (iii) the value of the items;
   • (iv) these were multiple offending - the value of items and loss might seem insignificant compares to other cases, but the fact that you committed these offences on seven separate occasions is an important consideration;
   • (v) the impact on the victim - from the victim impact report, the investigation by the company took time and involved a lot of resources with an estimated value of $5,000. The report further says that your offending were one of many by employees of the complainant company that has had an impact on the company’s resources.
6. The mitigating factors are:
   • (i) your guilty pleas to the charges;
   • (ii) that the total value of the loss has been repaid in full;
   • (iii) you rendered an apology which was accepted by a representative of the company.
   • (iv) your personal circumstances - you are 35 years of age and married with 3 young children between 8 and 10 years. You are the eldest of only two children. You completed your secondary education at Faleata College and had a number of jobs to support your family. Your employment with the complainant company was terminated as a result of your offending. Your father and church minister seek leniency in the testimonials provided through probation. You are a first offender.
7. Theft as a servant charges are serious because they involve a breach of trust of the victim companies and employers. As the case authorities show, sentences vary from non-custodial to long sentences of imprisonment depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
8. Prosecution recommend a non-custodial sentence of supervision. I consider that recommendation in view of the authorities cited in their memorandum and other similar cases that have come before the court. I consider that you did not take the items but rather facilitated its taking by others by dishonest means. I consider also the value of the items and loss which you have paid back in full; your personal circumstances and first offender status. And despite the number of charges, I accept as appropriate the recommendation by prosecution.
9. You are convicted of all 7 charges of theft as a servant and sentenced to 2 years supervision with a condition that you complete 80 hours community work under the direction and supervision of probation. You should consider yourself very lucky. I was minded to impose an imprisonment term despite your first offender status because of the number of charges. In the end and for reasons I have referred to, I decided to accept the recommendation by prosecution. So you should make use of this opportunity and leniency granted to you. You should not come back to court for similar or any other offending.

JUSTICE ROMA