Police v Laupapa [2025] WSSC 10 (14 March 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Laupapa [2025] WSSC 10 (14 March 2025)

Case name:	Police v Laupapa
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 10
Decision date:	14 March 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v TELEA LAUPAPA male of Salelologa and Samalaeulu Savaii (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	2025-00298 Charge 1 per Charging Document dated 24/2/25.
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Fepulea’i Ameperosa Roma
On appeal from:
Order:	On the one charge of theft as a servant, you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months supervision with the condition that you complete 60 hours community work
Representation:	J. Leung Wai for Prosecution Defendant appears in Person
Catchwords:	Theft as a servant.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 174; 161 & 165(e).
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

TELEA LAUPAPA male of Salelologa and Samalaeulu Savaii

Defendant

Counsel: J. Leung Wai for Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Sentence: 14 March 2025

SENTENCE

Charge

1. You appear this morning for sentence on one charge of theft as a servant which carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment. The charge was first called on the 24th February on which date you entered a plea of guilty.

Offending

2. At the time of offending you were employed as a senior engineering officer in the technical unit of the Land Transport Authority at Salelologa, Savaii. On the 24th December 2024, three customers came to the LTA office to apply for drivers’ licences. You assisted them in processing their applications, then went on to access the cashier system illegally using another colleague’s user account. Each customer paid to you $173.00 and instead of paying to LTA, you took the money for your own use without any authority or permission. The theft was discovered when work resumed on the 8th January this year and reported to police. When interviewed under caution, you admitted your offending to police.

Aggravating Factors

3. I consider the breach of trust and prevalence of theft of a servant cases.

Mitigating Factors

4. In mitigation of penalty I take into account:
   • (i) your early guilty plea;
   • (ii) restitution as confirmed by Probation;
   • (iii) your apology to the complainant authority; and
   • (iv) your personal circumstances – you are 29 years of age and youngest of four siblings. You have had a reasonably good education and good employment firstly with the Central Bank of Samoa as an assistant economist, and later LTA as an accounts receivables officer before becoming a senior engineering officer after further training. Clearly you have worked hard and made good use of opportunity. The testimonial by the ACEO of LTA, Salelologa Savaii says that you were a reliable and trusted employee. The victim impact report received this morning and which I have referred you to says otherwise. It mentions similar incidents you were involved in previously, and which you confirm. Obviously, you have had issues with honesty and the Authority has given you chances before this matter was referred to police for charges. Your employment was terminated as a result of this incident. You are a father to four young children and you now depend on your wife’s employment at ANZ Bank in Savaii for support. You are a first offender.

Discussion

5. For a long time now, the court has had a general practice of imposing imprisonment terms on defendants in theft as a servant cases given the breach of trust and its prevalence. But there have also been cases where non-custodial penalties are imposed, normally where the amounts involved are significantly smaller. This is one such case. In saying that I consider also the other mitigating factors in your favour to which I have referred including your earliest guilty plea, full restitution and expression of remorse.
6. Prosecution also recommend a non-custodial sentence of supervision. I have reviewed the circumstances of each case referred to in their memorandum and decided to accept their recommendation. But you must know that if you come back for similar offending in the future, you will not receive the same leniency.

Result

7. On the one charge of theft as a servant, you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ supervision with the condition that you complete 60 hours’ community work.
   

JUSTICE ROMA