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

Police v Saufoi [2022] WSSC 79 (1 December 2022)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Saufoi [2022] WSSC 79 (01 December 2022)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

AND:

LAUINA MARIA CELIA SAUFOI

Defendant

Counsel: B. Vukalokalo for Prosecution
L. Sio for the Defendant

Date: 01 December 2022

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant appears for sentence for theft as a servant.
2. Between May – July 2022, the defendant on 16 separate occasions carried out the offending whereby she manipulated the system by creating false return invoices and obtained refunds from the victim company, Ah Liki Wholesale. She made it look like the items or goods were returned by the customers and pocketed the money from the refunds.
3. In general, with offending of this kind, the Court usually imposes a custodial sentence except in very exceptional circumstances. I accept the submissions of defence counsel referring to the various cases referred to by Prosecution but those cases involved defendants in managerial or supervisory roles to which the level of trust is high and the level of criminality would also be high. That is, the level of trust imposed on a cashier is different from the level of trust imposed on a manager or supervisor. The defendant is 24 years’ old, immature and therefore would not fully comprehend the consequences of such behaviour.
4. I reiterate what the former Chief Justice said in Police v Keti^[1] that, “The sum involved is obviously not the only factor to be considered but it may in many cases provide a useful guide.”
5. This the Prosecution has done. They seek for a custodial sentence with a starting point of 4 years comparable to other cases of similar circumstances in employment status or in amounts.
6. The question is, did any of the defendants in any of the above cases make full restitution to the victim companies?
7. In the present case the defendant has made full restitution and above of $34,183.10, not just $28,828.40 referred to by Prosecution.
8. The golden rule of sentencing is that each defendant is to be sentenced according to the particular circumstances of his/her offending. I take note of the aggravating factors of this offending as follows:
   • (i) Breach of trust which usually accompanies offending of this nature. In the present case, the level of trust is one of medium;
   • (ii) Pre-meditation on the part of the defendant;
   • (iii) Amount taken of $28,828.40;
   • (iv) Impact of such offending on the company.
9. I also accept the mitigating factors both personal and to the offending advanced by counsel for the defendant as follows:
   • (i) Early guilty plea – a sign of the defendant accepting or taking responsibility of her behaviour and actions;
   • (ii) The defendant no doubt is truly remorseful of her actions;
   • (iii) I accept that she cooperated with the police by telling them as to what and how she stole the money;
   • (iv) The defendant and her mother apologised to the victim company, albeit not the owner as he is a very busy man;
   • (v) Full restitution (and above) of the money taken by the defendant.
10. In the victim impact report from Ah Liki Wholesale by way of letter dated 28 October 2022 to the Attorney General’s Office (Prosecution) seeking for withdrawal of this matter and at the same time pleading on behalf of the defendant. I take matters (1) to (4) raised in the company’s letter as mitigating factors in favour of the defendant.
11. The letter by the company acknowledging full restitution of the money taken vitiates any harm or impact of this offending upon Ah Liki Wholesale.
12. In the particular circumstances of this case a non-custodial sentence is appropriate:
    • (i) The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ supervision & 50 hours’ community service for each charge to be served concurrently.
13. The defendant is also to pay the following costs by 4pm, Friday 02 December 2022:
    • (ii) $300 Prosecution costs;
    • (iii) $200 Probation costs.
      

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

^[1] Police v Keti [2015] WSSC 16 (05 March 2015).