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

Police v Ah Fook [2012] WSSC 100 (3 December 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Ah Fook [2012] WSSC 100

Case name: Police v Ah Fook

Citation: [2012] WSSC 100

Decision date: 03 December 2012

Parties:
POLICE v ALIITASI TAIBELLANIA AH FOOK female of Vaitele-fou

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Ms R.Titi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND

ALIITASI TAIBELLANIA AH FOOK female of Vaitele-fou.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms R.Titi for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 03 December 2012

SENTENCE

The police summary of facts which the defendant has accepted states; she is 34 years old, a female of Vaitele-fou married with five children. Her probation office pre-sentence report says that she is a very hardworking person who takes a leading role in her family always working to feed and upkeep the family. Her husband is unemployed but she works long hours to ensure there was financial stability for her aiga especially her children. She is a person who was raised within her church and her commission of these acts came as a complete shock to those who know her and to her family in particular. I have no doubt based on what I have read that she is a person of good character and a hardworking mother. And that what happened in this case was she made some very bad decisions.

She was at the time of these offences employed by a bakery. Her duties included general customer service and also handling company monies. As such she was given a position of trust by her employer.

On Wednesday, 17 October this year the general manger of the bakery handed her $5,109 to pay for supplies of flour and other goods. Instead of using the money to pay for the supplies the defendant put it in her pocket and kept it for her own personal purposes.

On Thursday, 25 October this year the bakery manager again handed her a further sum of $5,135 to pay for bakery supplies. Again she misappropriated the money for her own personal purposes.

On Monday the summary says 05 October prosecution counsel but that must be 05 November and I am amending it accordingly. On Monday, 05 November 2012 the supply company approached the bakery manager asking for payment for stocks delivered previously. The manager confronted the defendant who admitted to what she did and apologized.

The bakery laid a complaint with the police and on Tuesday, 06 November the police took the defendant into custody and interviewed her. She admitted what she had done and when her case was mentioned at first mention she pleaded guilty to two counts of theft as a servant. She appears for sentence on the two counts this afternoon.

This is another sad case of a young woman who felt that her only option to meet her family and other obligations was to steal from her employer. What she stole was not a small amount but a significant sum. On the first occasion it was $5,109 and one week later on the second occasion $5,135, a total sum of $10,244. She said in mitigation this morning that she did this because she had been treated poorly by her employer. I am sure Aliitasi knows that was no reason or excuse from stealing for someone who employs you. Her option was to resign and find other employment. It was not an option to help herself to funds entrusted to her to pay for bakery supplies. Her stealing was deliberate and calculated. It involved a breach of trust and a large sum of money which she stole on two different occasions.

The court has often stated that because of the seriousness and prevalence of the offence of theft as a servant the usual penalty is a penalty of imprisonment. Imprisonment marks the seriousness and also serves as a deterrent to the defendant herself and others who may be tempted to follow this sort of behaviour. Young women and other workers in our community must understand that if you steal from your employer in this fashion it is likely you will be given jail time. I am sorry that it will affect the defendants family and her young children but those are the consequences of her own conduct.

As to a suitable period for your offending the law says the maximum penalty is 7 years in prison. Penalties for similar cases involving first offenders who have pleaded guilty to stealing this kind of amount have been in the range of 18 months to 2½ years in prison. I note that Aliitasi has apologized to the company for her behaviour and the company has accepted that apology. I also note she is a first offender and that she has pleaded guilty early saving the time and meagre resources of the court. I will therefore take the lower sentence of the sentencing range. For these two offences you will convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

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

JUSTICE NELSON