IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

GASEGASEIVAO ALAIFEA,
female of Vaimoso-uta and Salesatele Falealili.
Defendant

Counsels:	Ms F. Vaai for the prosecution
Ms M.V. Peteru for the defendant

Sentence:	19 July 2010

SENTENCE

This defendant appears for sentence according to the summary of facts which she has accepted through her counsel on 206 counts of false accounting and 209 counts of theft as a servant. These offences were committed whilst she was employed by the Ministry of Justice and Courts Administration as a cashier. The amounts involved in the misappropriation range from $53/$54 representing the majority of amounts to amounts in excess of $100 a handful of amounts between $200, $300, $400 and $500. All these amounts total up to $22,809.54 representing offending committed over the period April 2007 to June 2009 and involving payments made by members of the public into the Ministry of Justice for various court and other matters. 

The defendants system was quite simple. She wrote out the correct amounts on an original receipt which she would hand to the person making the payment but later would alter the duplicate receipt to show a lesser amount and pocket the difference, monies which according to the documents before me she applied for her own personal use as if it were her own. I cannot understand why she thought she would never be caught because a routine audit easily revealed her transgressions. This has all led to her court appearance today for sentence on charges of false accounting which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and theft as a servant which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison. 

The defendant is a single 26 year old female of Vaimoso and Salesatele Falealili and has a clean police record. This is obviously a very large theft from a ministry that requires a high degree of public confidence. Trust and confidence that has been undermined by the defendants actions. It is to the ministries credit that the defendant was eventually detected but it is not to its credit that its financial systems were such that this defendant was allowed to indulge in such thefts over a two year plus period without being caught. There is something to be said about regular reporting and monitoring of internal controls and this should be a lesson to all ministries and corporations responsible for public monies. 

The aggravating factors of the offending are correctly set out in the prosecutions memorandum. The fact that this involves stealing monies from a ministry where trust is one of its central pillars, the pre-meditated planned nature of the thefts which involve the falsifying of official documents, the fact that the amount stolen is substantial and was taken over a long period of time and the fact that probably if the audit had not revealed it these thefts may well have continued.

The seriousness of the offending demands an imprisonment penalty and I say this notwithstanding the fact that I have been advised the defendant is 5 or so months pregnant. The law is clear, such personal considerations must give way to factors of deterrence and the public interest in protecting its institutions. Again the court must repeat the message that if you steal from your employer that is almost a guaranteed path to prison. 

However the court is also mandated to take into account what defence counsel has rightly submitted are the factors in the defendants favour. These include the fact that this is her first criminal offence of any kind, the fact that she has pleaded guilty and saved the courts time and resources, the fact of her original apology to the Chief Executive Officer of the ministry before the extent of her criminal activities became fully known and the fact that minimal restitution has been made in the sum of $700 at some stage; and the other like factors that are outlined in the pre-sentence Probation Office report on the defendant. 

I deal firstly with the more serious group of charges that of theft as a servant. Considering the degree of the criminal offending involved in this matter a 5 year start point out of the 7 year max is appropriate. I will make one-third deduction for the defendants guilty plea which was a plea entered at a reasonable time before trial. That is a discount of 20 months leaving a balance of 40 months. For the defendants first offenders status as well as the other factors in the defendants favour that I have referred to I will make a further deduction of 12 months leaving a balance of 28 months. I note that is a term that is in line with sentences in similar cases for similar amounts in similar thefts. Accordingly on the charges of theft as a servant the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years 4 months in prison as a total sentence package. 

In respect of the charges of false accounting the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison again as a total sentence but this term is to be served concurrent to the theft as a servant terms so that the total time this defendant will serve will be 2 years and 4 months in prison.

JUSTICE NELSON