Police v Tyrell [2025] WSSC 48 (28 May 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tyrell [2025] WSSC 48 (28 May 2025)

Case name:	Police v Tyrell
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 48
Decision date:	28 May 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v ALLEN JUNIOR ALLAN TYRELL @ ALLEN JUNIOR ALLEN TYRELL @ ZEANDRE ERICSON TYRELL male of Matautu-uta, Lepea and Siusega (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	28 May 2025
File number(s):	2024-03427 SC/CR/UP
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Senior Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	The court has heard your explanation and argument Allen, the court does not accept it. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both charges are proven by the Police. You will be remanded in custody to 12:30 noon on 10 June 2025 for sentence. Prosecution please make sure you file a Victim Impact Report as well as a Pre-sentence Report.
Representation:	R. Fong for prosecution Defendant unrepresented
Catchwords:	Burglary – theft – charges proven beyond reasonable doubt.
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:

ALLEN JUNIOR ALLAN TYRELL @ ALLEN JUNIOR ALLEN TYRELL @ ZEANDRE ERICSON TYRELL male of Matautu-uta, Lepea and Siusega.

Defendant

Counsel: R. Fong for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Hearing: 28 May 2025

Decision: 28 May 2025

DECISION OF THE COURT

1. The defendant is charged with breaking in to the Island Love Supermarket at Matautu on 29 August 2024 and stealing cigarettes, alcohol and lighters, viz.
   • (i) on 29 August 2024 at Matautu, he entered a building namely Island Love Company Limited without authority and with intent to commit a crime, thereby committed a crime of Burglary; and
   • (ii) on the same date and place he dishonestly took twenty two (22) cartons of red large Pall Mall valued at $148.00 each, six (6) cartons of green large Pall Mall valued at $164.00SAT each, sixteen (16) Cartons of red small Pall Mall valued at $148.00SAT each, two (2) cartons of green small Pall Mall valued at $164.00 each, three (3) cartons of large Rothmans valued at $134.00Sat each, four (4) cartons of small Rothmans valued at $134.00 each, six cartons of Winfield valued at $49.50SAT each, one bottle of Jack Daniel Whiskey valued at $115.00, one (1) bottle of Red Label Whiskey valued at $115.00, two (2) bottles of Potter Whiskey valued at $55.00 each, one (1) bottle of Bacardi valued at 95.00 and fifty (50) BIC lighters valued at $3.40 each to a total value of $8,776.00SAT, the properties of Island Love Company Limited, with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the said properties.
2. The defendant denies doing this and claims he was living at Lepea at the time as part of his bail conditions on another matter. The Police case against him rests on identification of the defendant as the perpetrator based on video camera photographs of the burglar taken on the Island Love cameras. This show a footage of a male with a distinctive tattoo on his right hand as being the perpetrator. The tattoo is the word “Easter” which has been referred to by the witnesses as “Esther” on the side of the right hand. Together with a wedding band in traditional Samoan design on the third finger of his right hand.
3. The defendant argues that these are common tattoos, he sees many people with it on social media. But no one with a similar tattoo was called by the defendant to support his argument. I also note that when he elected to give evidence, did not deny that his mothers name is ‘Esther’.
4. I have had a close look at the photos of the alleged perpetrator and photos of the defendants right hand. Both bear tattoos which clearly have many similarities. Firstly there is the word “Easter”. Secondly the long slash of the “t” that runs over the ‘s’ and the ‘e’ of ‘Easter’ is the same in both photographs. As are the star shapes that follow the word ‘Easter’ in exactly the same spot. There is a further similarity in the wedding band done in traditional Samoan design on the same hand of the burglar as the defendant.
5. The combination of the two is distinctive. It is way too much of a coincidence to accept that a different person with the same tattoo would burgle a supermarket in the defendants home village while the defendant was free on bail. Where you were living at the time Allen is irrelevant because living at Lepea which is also in the Apia town area does not prevent a person travelling from Lepea to Matautu in the early hours of the morning and committing a burglary.
6. The court has heard your explanation and argument Allen, the court does not accept it. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both charges are proven by the Police. You will be remanded in custody to 12:30 noon on 10 June 2025 for sentence. Prosecution please make sure you file a Victim Impact Report as well as a Pre-sentence Report.
7. O lea foi ua tāpā se ripoti mai le Ofisa Faanofo Va'ava'aia mo lau mataupu Aleni atonu e fesoasoani mo oe i le mataupu lenei. Sei o’o i se taimi asiasi atu le Ofisa Faanofo Va'ava'aia ia oe e tapena mai le ripoti lea. A’o le fa’aiuga lena o le tatou mataupu ua fa’amaonia lau solitulafono i moliaga uma ia e lua lea e totoe. Ma o le aso 10 o Iuni 2025 e lau ai le fa’aiuga.
   

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON