Police v Uaita [2025] WSSC 79 (12 September 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Uaita [2025] WSSC 79 (12 September 2025)

Case name:	Police v Uaita
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 79
Decision date:	12 September 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) and LIU FEAUALII UAITA male of Aele-fou (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court, CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The accused, Liu Feaualii Uaita, is convicted and sentenced as follows: Identity fraud – s.215(2)(a): 34 months’ imprisonment Identity fraud – s.215(1): 18 months’ imprisonment Dishonestly taking or using a document – s.169(a) × 3: 18 months’ imprisonment on each count All sentences to be concurrent with less time in custody awaiting sentence.
Representation:	P. Paramore for Prosecution Accused appears in Person
Catchwords:	Identity fraud, dishonestly taking or using document, pre-meditation, deception, culpability, aggravating features, mitigating factors, convicted and sentenced, early guilty plea, imprisonment
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s215(2)(a) & s215(1) & s169(a)&(b)
Cases cited:	1. Police v Sione [2020] WSDC 17 (20 March 2020) 2. R v Varjan CA97/03, 26 June 2003 and R v Varjan (No.2) CA97/03, 1 July 2003; referred to in Police v Ah Kuoi [2016] WSSC 45 (10 March 2016)
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

LIU FEAUALII UAITA, male of Aele-fou

Accused

Counsel: P Paramore for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 12 September 2025

SENTENCING OF TUATAGALOA

The charges

1. The accused, Liu Feaualii Uaita appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to the following offences:

Identity fraud:

• Intentionally personated another person by using that person’s birth certificate to obtain a passport, with intent to gain advantage, contrary to section 215(2)(a) of Crimes Act 2013 with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and
• Used that person’s identity to re-register for the 2025 general elections, contrary to section 215(1) with a maximum penalty of 5 years.

Dishonestly taking or Using document:

• Intentionally and dishonestly obtained a birth certificate in another person’s name, contrary to section 169(a) of the Crimes Act 2013 with a maximum penalty of 7 years;
• Intentionally and dishonestly used that birth certificate to apply for a passport in that person’s name, contrary to section 169(b) with maximum 7 years’ imprisonment; and
• Intentionally and dishonestly used the passport in that person’s name, contrary to section 169(a) with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

2. In 2023 the accused sought to travel overseas for seasonal work but knew his prior convictions made him ineligible for the scheme. He obtained the birth certificate of another person and used it to apply for a passport. Passport No. T537332 was issued in that person’s name and used by the accused to travel overseas for seasonal work.
3. On 15 April 2025 the accused used the same false passport to re-register to vote in the 2025 general elections.
4. On 9 June 2025, the real person attended the Office of the Electoral Commission to register but was informed he was already on the roll. Upon reviewing the details, he recognized the accused, as the accused’s mother is married to the victim’s cousin.

The Accused

5. The accused is 29-years old, married with one child. He and the victim know each other. He admitted in the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) that he had difficulty applying for seasonal work due to prior convictions, and that his mother’s partner’s sister provided him with her son’s birth certificate.
6. The PSR records inconsistencies in his account and an inability to verify his information, as contact numbers for his mother and wife went unanswered. The court finds the accused lacking in honesty.
7. He has prior serious convictions from 2015 and is therefore not treated as a first offender.

The Victim

8. The victim a 33-year-old male from Savaia, Lefaga was shocked to discover his identity had been used. He fears the misuse of his name could affect his ability to travel or participate in seasonal work schemes.

Aggravating features of the offending

9. The prosecution identifies the following to be the aggravating features:
   • Premeditation
   • Significant fraud, deception and dishonesty
   • Sustained offending over an extended period
   • Attack on public confidence and democratic processes
   • Direct harm to the victim

Mitigating factors

10. The only mitigating factor is the early guilty plea. There was no apology offered by the accused or his family to the victim.

Discussion

11. The accused deliberately obtained and used another person’s identity to secure a passport and travel overseas. He also used that identity to register for elections, despite having no need to do so. That is, he could have registered under his own name and provide proof of identity by way of his own birth certificate.
12. The victims of this offending include the Samoa Immigration Services, the New Zealand authorities, and the individual whose identity was stolen. The conduct undermines the integrity of the passport system and other official processes.
13. I find that the offending, while involving planning and premeditation, was also repetitive in nature. The accused unlawfully obtained a birth certificate, used it to acquire a passport, and then used that passport to impersonate another individual for travel and voter registration purposes. This conduct reflects sustained and deliberate deceit.
14. The injury caused to the victim (real person) stems from the accused's unauthorized use of his name and identity. The accused, who has prior convictions for serious offenses, is not of good character. In the Victim Impact Report (VIR), the victim expresses concern that his reputation has been tarnished and fears that his ability to travel overseas may be compromised.
15. I have reviewed the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) prepared by Probation Services, which outlines the accused’s personal background, education, and employment history. He left school in Year 10 and has worked primarily in manual labor. No written character references have been provided. Probation Services noted that they were unable to verify the accused’s statements, as the mobile numbers he provided for his mother and wife were repeatedly unanswered. I have also received a letter from the accused expressing remorse and requesting a non-custodial sentence so he can support his young family and daughter. However, I find his claims difficult to accept given the nature of the offending, which directly implicates his integrity and honesty—qualities I find to be lacking.

Sentencing Principles

16. I am mindful of the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in sections 5 and 6 of the Sentencing Act 2016. In this case, the predominant sentencing objective is deterrence—both general and specific. The offending involves sustained and calculated deceit, striking at the heart of public trust in identity systems and civic processes. A sentence of imprisonment is warranted to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and to send a clear message to others who may be tempted to engage in similar fraudulent behavior. The integrity of official documentation and democratic participation must be safeguarded, and this sentence must reinforce that such violations will be met with firm consequences.
17. There are no applicable sentencing tariffs. The only comparable matter in Samoa is Police v Sione^[1] before Judge Papali‘i in the District Court which involved similar factual circumstances. While that case did not involve identity fraud under s.215(1) or s.215(2)(a), but rather dishonestly taking and use of a document under s.169 (maximum penalty: 7
18. I agree with Judge Papalii that the general principles for fraud cases apply equally here. In R v Varjan^[2] at [22] and [23], the New Zealand Court of Appeal set out the approach to culpability:^[3]
    • “[22] Culpability is to be assessed by reference to the circumstances and such factors as the nature of the offending, its magnitude and sophistication; the type, circumstances and number of the victims; the motivation for the offending; the amounts involved; the losses; the period over which the offending occurred; the seriousness of breaches of trust involved; and the impact on victims”.
      “[23] It is in the assessment of culpability that comparison with other case is to be undertaken. Matters of mitigation such as reparation, co-operation with investigators, plea, remorse and personal circumstances necessarily must be assessed in each particular case.”

Assessment of Culpability

19. The accused had previous convictions although of a different nature, they were serious. Both the previous and current offending demonstrate a lack of character and continuing disregard for the law.
20. The accused accepted the summary of facts and pleaded guilty at a reasonably early stage. Any remorse is treated as inherent in a guilty plea and reflected in the discount applied.

Starting Point

21. The prosecution, adopting a totality approach, submitted that an appropriate starting point lies within the range of four to five years’ imprisonment. I note that there are no established tariff decisions directly applicable to this type of offending.
22. The principal charge is identity fraud under section 215(2)(a) of the Crimes Act. The accused unlawfully assumed the identity of another individual by using that person’s birth certificate to obtain a passport. This fraudulent conduct was undertaken to gain advantage and pecuniary benefit, specifically through participation in overseas seasonal employment schemes. The statutory maximum penalty for this offense is ten years’ imprisonment.
23. The determination of a starting point reflects an assessment of the degree of culpability, which must be considered in light of the seriousness of the offending. I accept the prosecution’s submission and agree that a starting point of four (4) years’ imprisonment is appropriate in this case.

Discounts

24. In my view, aside from the accused’s guilty pleas, only a nominal reduction in sentence is warranted for expressions of remorse and the personal circumstances relating to his young family. While I acknowledge the letter submitted by the accused and his stated desire to support his child, the seriousness and sustained nature of the offending significantly outweigh these considerations. Accordingly, I allow a modest discount of three months from the starting point.
25. This brings the notional sentence to three years and nine months. Applying a discount of 25% for the accused’s guilty pleas, which amounts to eleven months (11), the final sentence is reduced to two thirty-four months’ (34) or 2 years 10 months’ imprisonment.

Sentence

26. The accused, Liu Feaualii Uaita, is convicted and sentenced as follows:
    • Identity fraud – s.215(2)(a): 34 months’ imprisonment
    • Identity fraud – s.215(1): 18 months’ imprisonment
    • Dishonestly taking or using a document – s.169(a) × 3: 18 months’ imprisonment on each count
27. All sentences to be concurrent with less time in custody awaiting sentence.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

---

^[1] Police v Sione [2020] WSDC 17 (20 March 2020)
^[2] R v Varjan CA97/03, 26 June 2003 and R v Varjan (No.2) CA97/03, 1 July 2003; referred to in Police v Ah Kuoi [2016] WSSC 45 (10 March 2016)
^[3] Ibid, note 1 at [29]