IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Fareni [2025] WSSC 90 (3 October 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Fareni	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 90	
		
Decision date: 	03 October 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) and SIOSE FARENI, male of Solosolo and Leusoalii (Accused)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	2025-01225/SC/CR/UP	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court, CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The accused, Siose Fareni, is convicted and sentenced as follows:
•	Identity fraud – s.215(2)(a): 15 months’ imprisonment
•	Identity fraud – s.215(1): 12 months’ imprisonment
•	Dishonestly taking or using a document – s.169(a) × 3: 12 months’ imprisonment on each count
All sentences to be concurrent with less time in custody awaiting sentence.

Representation: 	P Paramore for Prosecution	
	Accused in Person	
Catchwords: 	Identity fraud, dishonestly taking or using a document, premeditation, aggravating features of the offending, mitigating factors, convicted and sentenced	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 ss. 215(2)(a); 169(a)&(b)	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Sione [2020] WSDC 17 (20 March 2020)
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:

SIOSE FARENI, male of Solosolo and Leusoalii

Accused

Counsel:	P Paramore for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	3 October 2025

sentencing of tuatagaloa J 
The charges
1. 	The accused, Siose Fareni appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Identity fraud:
•	Intentionally personated his younger brother by using his 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 his brother’s birth certificate from the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Office, 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 his brother’s name, contrary to section 169(b) with maximum 7 years’ imprisonment; and
•	Intentionally and dishonestly used the passport in that person’s name to re-register for the 2025 general elections, contrary to section 169(b) with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
The offending
2. 	In 2023 the accused sought to secure seasonal work overseas but knew that he was ineligible for he had exceeded the age limit. To overcome this, he obtained the birth certificate of his younger brother and used it to apply for a passport. Passport No. T533013 was issued in his brother’s name but bearing the accused’s photograph. The accused used the falsified passport to travel overseas for seasonal work for a period of six months. 
3. 	On 9 April 2025 the accused used the same false passport to register to vote in the 2025 general elections.
4. 	On 12 April 2025, the accused’s brother (victim) attempted to register when the Electoral Office came to his village to register but was informed, he was already on the roll. Upon reviewing the details, he recognized the impersonator to be his older brother (accused).
The Accused
5. 	The accused is 55-years old, married with three children. He and the victim are brothers, him being older by two years. He admitted in the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) that he used his brother’s birth certificate in an effort to secure seasonal work to support his family. Although his intentions were to provide for his family, it does not justify his illegal actions.
6. 	The PSR has the accused saying that he had apologized to his younger brother which probation services have confirmed.
7. 	He has previous convictions dating back to 1998 and 2003.
The Victim
8. 	The victim in this matter is the accused’s younger brother, a 33-year-old male residing at Solosolo. No Victim Impact Report (VIR) has been filed to inform the Court of the emotional or practical consequences of the offending, which involved the unauthorized use of the victim’s name and identity by his own brother.
9. 	However, a Supplementary Pre-Sentence Report dated 2 October records the victim stating that he was unaware his older brother had used his birth certificate to obtain a passport in his name. He was only informed after the passport had been issued and the accused was preparing to travel to New Zealand under an overseas work scheme. The victim reported that his brother apologized, and he forgave him on the assurance that such conduct would not be repeated.
Aggravating features of the offending
10. 	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
Mitigating factors
11. 	There are no mitigating factors to the offending.  The only mitigating factors are those personal to the accused of his early guilty plea, that he informed his younger brother of what he had done, the apology to his younger brother and the imposed village penalty confirmed by the village mayor. 
12. 	The accused will be treated as a first offender because his previous convictions are of a different nature and are more than twenty years ago.  
Discussion
13. 	This Court previously dealt with a closely related matter in Police v Liu Feaualii Uaita (unreported, 12 September 2025). In both cases, the offending came to light during registration for the 2025 general elections, where the accused continued to impersonate the identities of the victims rather than using their own. Each had obtained the victim’s birth certificate and used it to secure a passport in the victim’s name, but with their own photograph, for the purpose of accessing overseas seasonal work. Both accused had prior convictions. The distinguishing feature is that, in the present case, the victim is a sibling of the accused, whereas in Uaita, the victim was not a blood relative.
14. 	I reiterated all that I have said in Uaita (supra) as follows: 
•	‘12.	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 provided proof of identity by way of his own birth certificate.
•	13.	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. 
•	14.	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.’
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 reached Year 13 but did not complete his studies. Following his departure from school, the accused held various forms of employment before choosing to remain at home and work on the plantation. The PSR includes written character references from his church minister and the assistant village pulenuu, both attesting to his good character and describing him as a hardworking and committed member of both the church and the village. His wife echoes these sentiments and confirms that he is the sole provider for their family. The accused also conveys genuine remorse in the PSR. 
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. 	The only comparable matter in Samoa is Police v Sione before Judge Papali‘i in the District Court and the most recent is Police v Liu Feaualii Uaita (supra) which involved similar factual circumstances. While Sione may be of similar circumstances 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 years).
18. 	However, I agree with Judge Papalii that the general principles for fraud cases apply equally here. In R v Varjan at [22] and [23], the New Zealand Court of Appeal set out the approach to culpability:
	“[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 cases 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 case.”
Assessment of Culpability
19. 	Both the present matter and Police v Liu Feaualii Uaita involve attempts to gain access to the overseas seasonal work scheme through dishonest means. In Uaita, the accused would have been disqualified due to a serious conviction record. In the present case, the accused was ineligible on account of age. The Court has been informed that the scheme is restricted to individuals aged between 18 and 45 years. Even with the use of his younger brother’s birth certificate, the accused was 50 years old in 2023—exceeding the age threshold.
20. 	In both cases, the offending involved varying degrees of collusion with family members who facilitated the deception. The conduct in Uaita was more culpable, as the family member(s) were involved from the outset and actively assisted in obtaining another person’s birth certificate. In contrast, the victim in the present case—being the accused’s younger brother—only became aware of the offending after the passport had already been issued in his name. He did not report the matter to authorities.
21. 	Although the accused has prior convictions, as noted at [11], he is to be treated as a first offender for sentencing purposes. This distinguishes the present matter from Police v Liu Feaualii Uaita, where the accused was denied first offender status due to the seriousness and recency of his prior convictions. In contrast, the present accused’s previous offending occurred some time ago and does not carry the same weight in the current sentencing context.
22. 	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
23. 	The Court is mindful of the importance of the seasonal work scheme to many families and communities across Samoa. It offers economic opportunity and fosters regional cooperation. However, its integrity must be protected. Offending of this nature undermines public trust and risks jeopardizing future participation for others. A custodial sentence is therefore necessary not only to hold the accused accountable, but also to deter similar conduct and affirm the Court’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and the rule of law.
24. 	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. 
25. 	The principal charge is identity fraud under section 215(2)(a) of the Crimes Act. The accused unlawfully assumed the identity of his younger brother 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.
26. 	The present matter and Police v Liu Feaualii Uaita have brought to the Court’s attention a concerning pattern of unlawful conduct associated with the seasonal work scheme. Both cases reveal deliberate attempts to circumvent eligibility criteria, reflecting a broader issue of dishonest practices among participants and their families.
27. 	In determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the Court must assess the degree of culpability considering the seriousness and sustained nature of the offending. In present circumstances I find an appropriate starting point of three (3) years’ imprisonment is warranted.
Discounts
28. 	In my view, a reduction in sentence is warranted not only for the accused’s guilty pleas and first offender status, his apology, but also for his expressions of remorse and personal circumstances. I have considered the letters submitted by the accused’s church minister and pulenu'u, which attest to his good character. However, the nature of the offending stands in stark contrast to those endorsements. Accordingly, I allow a discount of ten (10) months for the apology, village penalty, personal circumstances and remorse, and a further six (6) months for first offender status, to be deducted from the starting point.
29. 	This results in a notional sentence of 20 months' imprisonment. Applying a 25% discount for the accused’s guilty plea—equivalent to five (5) months—the final sentence is reduced to fifteen (15) months, or one (1) year and three (3) months’ imprisonment.
Sentence
30. 	The accused, Siose Fareni, is convicted and sentenced as follows:
•	Identity fraud – s.215(2)(a): 15 months’ imprisonment
•	Identity fraud – s.215(1): 12 months’ imprisonment
•	Dishonestly taking or using a document – s.169(a) × 3: 12 months’ imprisonment on each count
31. 	All sentences to be concurrent with less time in custody awaiting sentence.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA