Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Fiamatai [2013] WSSC 44 (16 May 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Fiamatai [2013] WSSC 44

Case name: Police v Fiamatai

Citation: [2013] WSSC 44

Decision date:16 May 2013

Parties:

POLICE v KITIONA FIAMATAI, male of Saleufi and Fagamalo Savaii

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s):Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
F E Niumata for prosecution
M V Peteru for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Police v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND

KITIONA FIAMATAI, male of Saleufi and Fagamalo Savaii.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms F E Niumata for prosecution

Ms M V Peteru for defendant

Sentence: 16 May 2013

SENTENCE

The police summary of facts state that the defendant is a 23 year old male of Fagamalo and Saleufi. He is in a defacto relationship and has three children. He also has the other normal family responsibilities that young Samoan men have. He was as the time of this offending employed by one of the local hardware companies as an accounts receivable clerk. His duties included collecting monies and lodging them to the company account.

On 21 June 2012 he received the sum of $2,000.00 from a customer. Instead of processing that into the companys books and account he used it for his own personal purposes. According to the summary of facts this theft came to light when the defendant was caught tearing receipts from the receipt book and throwing them into the rubbish bin. Obviously this was done to conceal what he did and an investigation revealed the theft. The matter was referred to the police by the company.

He has been charged with stealing this $2,000.00 from his employer. A charge to which he has pleaded guilty. Although according to the file that plea was not entered at the first available opportunity.

His counsel has argued that in the circumstances a community based sentence rather than a penalty of imprisonment is appropriate. I cannot agree. The courts sentencing policy is well-known and well documented. As stated in Police v Valaauina [2009] WSSC 21 because of the seriousness and prevalence of this sort of offending usually imprisonment is imposed. The only time that it is not imposed is if there are exceptional circumstances warranting some other penalty. The reason for such a penalty is to deter not only the offender but others who are thinking of stealing from their employer. There are no circumstances in this case warranting departing from the general approach.

I take into account what your lawyer has said on your behalf Kitiona. In particular that you are a first offender, the fact that your guilty plea has saved the courts time and limited resources and the fact that you paid $550.00 by way of restitution. The fact that there has been an apology to your employer as confirmed in the probation office pre-sentence report. I also take into consideration the other general factors in your favour as outlined not only by counsel but by the probation office.

The maximum penalty for theft as a servant is 7 years in prison. In this particular case an 18 months sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate. But because of all those factors in your favour Kitiona I will reduce that in half.

For this charge you will convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. Your remand in custody time is to be deducted from that 9 months.

.........................

JUSTICE NELSON