Police v Seve [2024] WSSC 36 (10 June 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Seve [2024] WSSC 36 (10 June 2024)

Case name:	Police v Seve
Citation:	[2024] WSSC 36
Decision date:	10 June 2024
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v LEPISI TASILAVA FERETI SEVE, female of Falelauniu & Nofoalii (Accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME – Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke
On appeal from:
Order:	On the charge of forgery before the court, you are convicted and sentenced to 100 hours of community work. If it is deemed appropriate by the Probation Service and agreeable to the Samoa Cancer Society, that work will be carried out at the Samoa Cancer Society. I have not imposed a supervision term as requested for by Prosecution, as I said, your offending is out of character, it is isolated and I see no merit for a supervision term.
Representation:	J Leung Wai for Prosecution H Gauta for the Accused
Catchwords:	Forgery – bank employee.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
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:

LEPISI TASILAVA FERETI SEVE female of Falelauniu & Nofoalii.

Accused

Counsel: J Leung Wai for Prosecution
H Gauta for the Accused

Sentence: 10 June 2024

ORAL SENTENCE

The Charges:

1. Lepisi, you appear for sentencing on one charge of forgery which carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

The Offending:

2. According to the Summary of Facts, you were employed by the ANZ Bank as a bank teller. On the 24^th November 2023, a customer of the ANZ came to you. He filled out a withdrawal slip, you noted down his ID and he withdrew $2,300.00. On the same day, you then completed a withdrawal slip from his account and forged his signature and withdrew $3,000.00.
3. On the 21^st December 2023, your personal loan was approved and you repaid in full the money you had taken for your use. Through prosecution, it was accepted that the matter had only been reported to the ANZ after your repayment of the money and the theft charge you had pleaded guilty to was then withdrawn and dismissed.

Background of the Accused:

4. You are a 34 year old woman with 4 children, aged 2 to 12. You are separated from your husband who now lives in the United States. As a result of your actions, you were terminated from the ANZ Bank.

The Victim:

5. There are 2 victims to your offending. The first is the ANZ Bank. The second is the account owner whose signature you forged. You state that you have apologized to the ANZ Bank but this could not be verified. The account owner confirms your apology, has forgiven you and accepts you are genuinely remorseful for your actions.

Aggravating Features of the Offending:

6. The aggravating features of your offending is the element of premeditation and the breach of trust vested in you by the ANZ Bank.

Mitigation Features of the Offending:

7. The mitigating feature of your offending is that the funds which you fraudulently withdrew were repaid about a month later.

Mitigating Features Personal to the Offender:

8. Lepisi, I accept as mitigating the following personal to you:
   • (a) Your prior good character;
   • (b) I accept that you are deeply and genuinely remorseful for your offending;
   • (c) The apology you extended to the victim which is the account owner;
   • (d) Your personal circumstances. You being a single mother of 4 young children who no doubt depend on you; and
   • (e) Your early guilty plea.

Discussion:

9. Lepisi, you stand in the dock today to be sentenced for forgery. That you stand in the dock today to be sentenced for forgery is no doubt one of deep humiliation and regret for you. It is also regrettable from the view of the court because from the references I have read, you have been a person of strong character, integrity and honesty. I expect your offending has disappointed many people, not least of whom is yourself.
10. You explained that you forged the account holder’s signature so that you can access money to pay for your church obligations. For your father a Church Minister, there were regular offerings or taulaga. You had also applied for various loans so you could make your contribution to the annual church conference or faiga taulaga o le Me. The applications were denied so you accessed the account holder’s account to take $3,000.00 to make this contribution.
11. You are not the first bank teller to appear for taking money nor will you be the last. Many have stolen to meet church obligations. It is, as I said to you, somewhat of an irony that people would steal to pay for church contributions. Your case, and many others of this nature come before the court shows the stress and pressure people can feel to make contributions towards their church. People such as yourself must understand to give only what you can afford, a message churches should also convey to their parishioners.
12. Now I turn to sentence. Prosecution had originally sought a custodial sentence with 6 months’ imprisonment. An Amended Sentencing Memorandum has appropriately been filed seeking a non-custodial sentence. This is the case because authorities for forgery sentencing show that for matters with factors such as yours, generally, a non-custodial sentences imposed. I wholly accept Lepisi that your offending is completely out of character. You repaid the fund voluntarily before it was detected by the account owner as well as the bank as missing. You have apologized to the bank account owner. You have lost your job. You also have 4 young children and are a solo mother. I have no intention in the circumstances of your case to deprive your children of their mother. And from today, you will have a conviction against your name for forgery. You will have paid a very heavy price for a completely stupid decision on your part which you yourself said, “All reasoning went out the window.”
13. Although a non-custodial sentence will be imposed, your type of offending is common in banks. Today’s sentence should also not send the wrong signal to bank employees that to “use” bank money temporarily is ok. It is not ok to do what you did.

Result:

14. On the charge of forgery before the court, you are convicted and sentenced to 100 hours of community work. If it is deemed appropriate by the Probation Service and agreeable to the Samoa Cancer Society, that work will be carried out at the Samoa Cancer Society.
15. I have not imposed a supervision term as requested for by Prosecution, as I said, your offending is out of character, it is isolated and I see no merit for a supervision term.
    

JUSTICE CLARKE