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

Police v Miti [2014] WSSC 123 (24 March 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Miti [2014] WSSC 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

TAYLOR MITI, male of Vailele and Tafaigata.
Defendant

Counsel: G Nelson for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 24 March 2014

SENTENCE

1. On the 02^nd of August 2010 this defendant was convicted and sentenced on ninety seven (97) counts of theft as a servant. I imposed terms of two (2) years and four and a half (4½) years in respect of various charges. But terms were to run concurrently so that the defendant was to serve 4½ years in prison.
2. Those arose out of defalcations committed by the defendant when he was Senior Finance Officer of the Accounts Division of the Ministry of Police. The defendant carried out the thefts by generating false purchase orders (POs) and delivery slips and also issuing fictitious invoices to a non existent company. Payments for the invoices were facilitated by co-defendants who were working at the Treasury Department.
3. The thefts involved almost $300,000.00 in money over the period 01 January 2006 to 31 January 2008. The money obtained from the transactions was banked into a special bank account and it was split up amongst the defendants and his co-defendant.
4. The defendant has now been charged and has pleaded guilty to six new counts of theft as a servant over the same period of time involving his issuing false purchase orders and other documents to obtain building materials for his private residences at Malifa and Satapuala. The total value of the goods involved in the thefts the defendant has pleaded guilty to is $22,827.01.
5. Why the defendant was not previously charged with these offences is not clear. But as there is no statute of limitation for such matters the question now is what is an appropriate sentence for these thefts and whether any imprisonment imposed should be served concurrent or cumulative to his present sentence. As to the first question there is no issue that the offending requires a term of imprisonment for the same reason as the defendant is currently serving a term of imprisonment. The present offences are just as serious as the previous one. It is large scale offending involving a lot of money. It involves a high degree of deception and criminality although perhaps lacks the sophistication of the earlier offending. An appropriate term for the present offences would be around the 18 month to 2½ year mark. As the thefts are covered by the previous crimes legislation and not the current Crimes Act.
6. What I propose to do Taylor is I will take the midpoint of that range. On the present charges that involve sums less than $3,000.00 you will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison. For those charges involving more than $3,000.00 you will be convicted and sentenced to 2½ years in prison. This is a similar sentencing approach to the original sentences imposed on the defendant.
7. As to the question of cumulative and concurrent I am of the view that because these charges involve the defendant acting alone and involve a benefit that would accrue solely to the defendant and because Taylor they involve a different methodology and a different company and did not involve your co-defendant this offending must be treated different to your original offending. This means that ordinarily the sentence for this offending would be cumulative to the original sentences.
8. However there is another sentencing principle that the court needs to take into account. That the principle of totality of sentencing. That principle requires that the final sentence of the court fairly and justly reflect the total criminality of your offending. That principle would in my view be infringed if the sentences for these offences were to be just simply added on cumulative to your current sentence.
9. I consider that the proper approach would be to readjust the sentence for the present offences so that the total sentence for the offences plus the original offences fairly and justly reflects your criminal offending. And that the appropriate course of action is to reduce your sentence for the current offences to a 12 month term only and not 2 and 2½ years. So that the total would have been if all these charges had been properly brought together at the same time it would have been a term of 5½ years in prison. That term in my view is commensurate with the total criminal offending of the defendant in these matters.
10. Accordingly on each of the charges that the defendant has now pleaded guilty to you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison, terms to be concurrent to each other but that 12 months is cumulative to your present term of imprisonment.
11. Ia atonu e lavelave le fa’ata’atia atu o le fa’aiuga ona o ala fa’aletulafono Taylor a’o le taunuuga o le fa’aiuga o le mea taua lena. O le taimi fa’aopoopo mo moliaga ia lea ua e ioe iai e 12 masina e fa’aopoopo i le taimi lea e tuli nei. Atonu ua manino lea vaega? (Defendant indicated he understood).
    

JUSTICE NELSON