Police v Faamasino [2025] WSSC 91 (9 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faamasino [2025] WSSC 91 (9 October 2025)

Case name:	Police v Faamasino
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 91
Decision date:	09 October 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) and SHON FAAMASINO, male of Luatuanuu (Accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	2024-04576 SC/CR/UP
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court, CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:
	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendant, Shon Faamasino is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 1 month imprisonment less any time in custody.
Representation:	Attorney General’s Office for the Prosecution D Roma for the Accused
Catchwords:	Theft as a servant, aggravating factors, pleaded guilty, breach of trust, pre-meditation, mitigating factors, early guilty plea, first offender, convicted and sentenced, imprisonment
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 ss. 161; 165(f).
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

SHON FAAMASINO, male Luatuanuu

Accused

Counsel: Attorney General’s Office for Prosecution

D Roma for the Accused

Date: 9 October 2025

SENTENCE OF TUATAGALOA J

1. The accused pleaded guilty and appears to be sentenced on one count of theft as a servant which penalty is maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.^[1]
2. The accused at the time of the offending was employed by the British American Tobacco (Samoa) Company (BAT). The summary of facts says that the accused stole cash in the amount of $29,639.16.
3. The summary of facts prepared by the prosecution was read out and confirmed by the accused, which summary says:
   • The accused was employed by a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), responsible for the distribution and sale of tobacco products. He worked as a trade marketing representative, tasked with delivering and selling cigarettes along the west coast of Upolu. Company policy required that all delivery vehicles return to the office by 3:00pm, at which point any unsold stock and cash from sales were to be reconciled.
   • On 27 May 2014, the accused returned to the office but left without reconciling the remaining stock and cash. The Sales Manager instructed the Field Operations Manager to conduct the reconciliation, which revealed a cash shortfall of SAT$28,676.05.
4. According to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), the accused stated that he had informed his supervisor he would not be able to return by 3:00pm as his deliveries were incomplete. Nevertheless, he was instructed to return. Upon arrival at the office, the accused failed to reconcile the cash received and instead pocketed SAT$28,676.05 from the day’s sales and went home. He used the money to repay three personal loans and purchased materials to complete renovations on his house.

Aggravating factors

5. Prosecution seeks a custodial sentence with a starting point of three to five years noting the following as aggravating factors:
   • Breach of Trust;
   • Pre-meditation;
   • Amount stolen is significant
   • Impact on the Victim Company – No Victim Impact Report was obtained from the victim company. However, the Court notes the financial loss to the company.

Mitigating factors

6. Counsel for the accused acknowledged the significant amount of money taken and given sentencing authorities on this offending concedes that the sentence will be most likely than not a custodial sentence. Counsel also agrees to the starting point recommended by the prosecutions but seeks leniency taking into account the following mitigating factors:
   • The early guilty plea;
   • Personal circumstances as stated in the PSR;
   • He is a first offender; and
   • The written testimonials from his faifeau, pulenuu and his wife describing him as a person of previous good character, active member of his church and village council and his family relies on him for their welfare and maintenance.

Discussion

7. There have been cases of the same offending where the Court imposed non-custodial sentences. This is not the case. The circumstances of this case taking into account the significant amount stolen calls for a custodial sentence. The accused’s action or behavior was deliberate.
8. The accused’s actions constituted a serious breach of fiduciary duty and trust placed in him by his employer. As a trade marketing representative, he was entrusted with handling significant sums of money and stock, with clear procedures in place to ensure accountability. His deliberate decision to circumvent these procedures and misappropriate company funds for personal gain reflects a calculated abuse of that trust. Such offending undermines commercial integrity and calls for a sentencing response that reflects both the need for deterrence and the gravity of the breach.
9. The accused is 31 years old, married with three children, and is a first-time offender who has entered a guilty plea. Written testimonials from his wife, religious leader, and village mayor describe him as a dedicated, hard-working, and dependable individual. He has admitted in the Pre-Sentence Report to using misappropriated funds, and attempted to apologize to his employer, though he was not permitted to enter the premises. He has expressed genuine remorse and regret for his actions, acknowledging the breach of trust and its consequences.
10. I accept the mitigating factors as advanced by Counsel for the accused. I will also take into account that the accused has acknowledged his wrongdoing and cooperated with the pre-sentence process. He has expressed remorse and provided an explanation for his actions, citing financial pressures and personal obligations. While these do not excuse the offending, they offer context for the choices made. The Court also notes that the funds were used for personal debts and home improvements, rather than conspicuous consumption, which may indicate a degree of financial desperation rather than calculated greed.

Starting point

11. There are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a different approach from a custodial sentence. I agree that a starting point of 4 years is appropriate and make the following deductions – 8 months for first offender status and 6 months for remorse and his personal circumstances; this leaves 34 months or 2 years, 10 months. I give a 25% discount for his early guilty plea amounting to 9 months. The end sentence is 25 months or 2years and 4 months.

End Sentence

12. The defendant, Shon Faamasino is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment less any time in custody.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

---

^[1] Sections 161 & 165(f) Crimes Act 2013.