Police v Uati [2024] WSSC 49 (18 June 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Uati [2024] WSSC 49 (18 June 2024)

Case name:	Police v Uati
Citation:	[2024] WSSC 49
Decision date:	18 June 2024
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v FAAFETAI UATI, male of Moamoa tai, Vaitele fou and Vaipu’a Savaii (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	Charge 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 per charging document dated 27th May 2024.
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Fepulea’i A. Roma
On appeal from:	You are convicted of all 5 charges and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to be followed by 9 months supervision with a condition that you also complete the Salvation Army 7 week program.
Order:
Representation:	J. Leung-Wai for Prosecution Defendant in Person
Catchwords:	Burglary and theft.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	Police v. Maka [2023] WSSC 78; Police v. Maualaivao [2015] WSSC 47; Police v. Leapai [2022] WSSC 53.
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

FAAFETAI UATI, male of Moamoa tai, Vaitele fou and Vaipu’a Savaii.

Defendant

Counsel: J. Leung Wai for prosecution
Defendant in person

Sentence: 18 June 2024

SENTENCE

Charges

1. You appear for sentence on five charges. Two charges of burglary, each with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and two of theft, each with a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The fifth charge is one of intentional damage, the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment. You entered guilty pleas to all charges on the 27^th May 2024 when finalised by prosecution.

Offending

2. The offending arises out of two incidents. The first occurred on the 7^th April 2024 at around 12 midnight. You approached the victim’s house at Sinamoga and discovered the front door was locked. You forced open the door and entered without any authority, you found the victim sleeping in the living area and stole a laptop valued at $1,800, a Samsung mobile phone valued at $899 and $1000 in a cash. The total value of the stolen items is $4,199. The victim subsequently discovered the items missing and reported the incident. None of the items have been recovered.
3. Almost a month later the second incident occurred at Moamoa fou on the 1^st May 2024 around 12 midday. With a co accused and your faces covered, you attacked the victim’s shop, the shop attendant saw you approach and ran for cover. Your co accused jumped the counter whilst you remained outside. He uplifted and stole the cash machine which he handed to you. You both fled. The daylight robbery was reported to police. They arrived and found the cash machine damaged and abandoned. It was valued at $2,000.
4. You and your co accused were apprehended on the 7^th May 2024. On the 9^th May you were interviewed under caution and charged. In the presentence report you admit your offending and explain in detail your involvement both incidents, and say that alcohol was involved. You also say you have apologised to the victim and returned $1000 to one of them. Both victims deny such reconciliation.

Aggravating Factors

5. The aggravating features of your offending are as follows:
   • (i) it involved two separate incidents occurring within a month;
   • (ii) it involved the invasion of a private home and a small business;
   • (iii) there was an element of planning and premeditation;
   • (iv) the value of the items, being $6,199 in total;
   • (v) the impact on the victims – The first victim says he was worried having later discovered the break in, because he and his daughter were sleeping inside the house when you invaded the privacy of their home. There had also been previous incidents but no one was held responsible. He is concerned by the risk that these offending present to their safety and of others. No items were recovered and no apology was ever rendered. The second victim likewise says she was shocked by the incident. She could not believe that such an attack could happen in broad daylight and has considered hiring more workers to ensure better security. The stolen till had been damaged beyond repair. She says further that none of you and your co accused has apologised;
   • (vi) the prevalence of burglaries and thefts.

Mitigating Factors

6. I take into account:
   • (i) your guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity;
   • (ii) your personal circumstances. You are 17 years of age and the eldest of 6 children. You ended your formal education at Year 13 St Joseph College. You also attended Don Bosco Technical Institute for a year. At the time of offending, you were employed by a carpentry business at Moamoa. You have since been unemployed, you are a first offender.

Discussion

7. Burglaries and thefts by youths like you continue to be on the rise, and has been a common and unfortunate trend in our society. Whilst the court has granted leniency in appropriate cases on the basis of offenders’ young age and a view to rehabilitation, it has also imposed imprisonment sentences aimed at deterrence in many cases despite offenders’ age and first offender status.
8. In your case the value of the items and fact that none had been recovered or replaced; the impact on the victims including safety concerns from similar offending; the prevalence and general impact on the public safety are important considerations. Prosecution recommend a custodial sentence with a start point of 10 years. I consider previous sentencing decisions including the cases cited in support by prosecution, namely Police v. Maka [2023] WSSC 78, Police v. Maualaivao [2015] WSSC 47 and Police v. Leapai [2022] WSSC 53.
9. Probation makes no recommendation as to sentence. Despite your age and first offender status, I find that a custodial sentence is the appropriate penalty. It should deter you and other youths from continuing to commit the same offence. I adopt two and a half year on the two lead charges of burglary. I make these deductions. For your young age I deduct 4 months. For your personal circumstances including your first offender status I deduct 4 months. For your assistance to prosecution in agreeing to testify against your co accused who denied the charge against him, I deduct 4 months. For your plea of guilty to the charges, I deduct 6 months. The end sentence is 12 months.
10. Instead of serving the full term, I have decided you will serve 3 months imprisonment to be followed by 9 months supervision. It should both serve as deterrence and an opportunity for rehabilitation given your age.

Result

11. You are convicted of all 5 charges and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to be followed by 9 months supervision with a condition that you also complete the Salvation Army 7 week program.

JUSTICE ROMA