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

Police v Boon [2016] WSSC 191 (21 October 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Boon [2016] WSSC 191

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

PATRICK BOON male of Vaitele-uta
Defendant

Counsel:
F Ioane for prosecution
R Schuster for defendant

Sentence: 21 October 2016

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant was found guilty of 2 charges of theft of building materials from the premises of Bluebird Lumber and Hardware. At his instigation, three employees of Bluebird Lumber and Hardware unlawfully took the building materials from the company. The truck and driver was provided by the defendant to remove the buildings materials and deliver them to the home of the defendant. Payment for the materials was pre-arranged between the defendant and one of the employees who then distributed the cash amongst the other employees who assisted in the theft.
2. For the first load of stolen materials, the employees of Bluebird Lumber shared the $3,000 given by the defendant. The value of the stolen materials was estimated at $7,000. As for the second load of stolen materials, the value of the materials was estimated at $3,000. The defendant gave the other thieves $1,500 as their shares for distribution.
3. The defendant benefited the most from the thefts which he perpetrated.
   
4. The employees of Bluebird Lumber admitted of their involvement and have received imprisonment sentence. For his involvement the prosecution is seeking a custodial sentence of at least 2 years imprisonment.

The defendant

5. The defendant is 45, married, a businessman and a father of 3. He remained adamant of his innocence of the charges when he was interviewed by the Probation Service for the presentence report.
6. The uncontested evidence before the court is that:
   • (i) the defendant arranged for the truck and for one of his leading hands to pick up the load of building materials from the yard of Bluebird Lumber.
   • (ii) Later on in the same day the defendant met one of the employee outside Lucky Foodtown and gave $3,000 cash for distribution amongst the Bluebird Lumber employees.
   • (iii) The same process was followed when the 2^nd load was delivered and payment was made infront of Lucky Foodtown.
   • (iv) There was a meeting arranged by the defendant at Treasure Garden which two employees of Bluebird Lumber attended at a third order was given to them by the defendant to supply.
7. The insistence by the defendant as to his innocence despite the uncontested; credible evidence is a demonstration of a lack of remorse on his part.

Discussion

8. This was clearly a premeditated offence, an offence of dishonestly and a very prevalent offence. The employees of Bluebird Lumber were in a position of trust and their offending were considered more serious. That is a distinguishing aggravating feature which must have weighed in the mind of Justice Nelson when he imposed a custodial sentence on the employees of Bluebird Lumber. One other important feature is that neither of the employees of Bluebird Lumber was able to pay compensation.
9. Defendant has paid to Bluebird Lumber:

4,000-00

1,200-00

4,462-40

$9,662-40

10. Although a custodial sentence as imposed on the other defendants will not be the appropriate one, the penalty must reflect the serious nature of the offending and to act as deterrence.
11. For the both offences the defendant is fined $2,000. He is also ordered to pay cost of prosecution of $1,000. Both fine and costs to be paid by monthly instalment of $1,000. First payment 1^st November 2016 in default 3 months imprisonment.

JUSTICE VAAI