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

Police v Chadwick [2015] WSSC 15 (5 March 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Chadwick [2015] WSSC 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

FRANCINE CHADWICK female of Vaitele-uta.
Accused

Counsel: P Chang for prosecution
F E Niumata for accused

Sentence: 5 March 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused appears for sentence on sixteen separate charges of theft as servant, contrary to s.161 of the Crimes Act 2013, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment under s.165(e). To all charges, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. The complainant in this matter is the Senese Inclusive Education Institute at Motootua. The complainant started employing the accused as finance manager in 2010 after she graduated with a bachelor of commerce degree from the National University of Samoa.
3. Customers of the complainant would pay their fees to an accounts officer at a branch of the complainant. That accounts officer would then enter the fees paid into the complainant’s accounting system and printed out the receipts for those payments. All the payments and duplicates of the receipts are then taken to the accused as finance manager at the main office of the complainant for banking. When the payments and duplicates of the receipts are received by the accused, she was supposed to fill in the banking deposit slips. The money and the deposit slips would then be taken by another employee of the complainant to the bank for banking.
4. On sixteen separate occasions from January to December 2013, the accused would receive payments and duplicate receipts from the complainant’s accounts officer and, instead of filling in the deposit slips for banking the monies she received, she kept and used the monies for herself without the knowledge and authority of the complainant. The total amount of the monies taken by the accused in that way was $4,729.50.
5. As it appears from the pre-sentence report, the accused told the probation service that at the material times she was struggling financially to save up for her wedding in 2013 so she took her employer’s monies to pay her taxi fares to and back from work, to buy goods, and to buy some minor things needed for her wedding.

The accused

6. As shown from the pre-sentence report, the accused is now 25 years of age and was married in 2013. She was 24 years at the time of the offending. She attained a good level of education having graduated in 2010 from the National University of Samoa with a bachelor of commerce degree. In the same year, she took up employment with the complainant as finance manager. She is now unemployed and stays at home and look after her sick mother.
7. Submissions by counsel for the accused shows that the accused has written a letter to the complainant explaining her offending and apologising for the harm she has caused to the complainant. She has also apologised directly to the chairperson and director of the complainant. Her apologies were accepted.
8. The accused has also paid full reparation of the total amount of money with which she is charged. This is confirmed from the supplementary sentencing memorandum by counsel for the accused.
9. The accused also cooperated with the police in the investigation of this matter and readily admitted to them her wrongdoing. She has also pleaded guilty to the charges against her at the earliest opportunity.
10. The accused is also a first offender and had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence.

The complainant

11. There is very little in the material before the Court about the complainant except that it is an educational institution.

Aggravating features relating to the offending

(a) Breach of trust

12. Cases of theft as a servant always involve a breach by an employee of his/her employer’s trust in him/her. Often the important question is the quality and degree of trust placed by an employer in an employee. In this case, the accused held a senior financial position with the complainant. So the quality and degree of trust placed in her was not insignificant.

(b) Extent of offending

13. This offending involved sixteen separate occasions of theft committed over a period of about twelve months. It shows a high level of premeditation.

(c) Amount of money involved

14. The total amount of money stolen by the accused was $4,729.50.

Mitigating features relating to the offending

(a) Reparation

15. The accused has paid full reparation to the complainant of the money that she took. She has repaid $4,800 even though the total amount of money with which she was charged is $4,729.50.

(b) First offender status and previous good character

16. At the age of 25 years, the accused is a first offender and had been a person of good character prior to the commission of these offences.

(c) Cooperation with police

17. The accused had cooperated with the police in their investigation of this matter and she readily admitted to them her wrongdoing.

(d) Remorse

18. The accused has apologised by letter to the complainant as well as by directly apologising to the chairperson and director of the complainant. Her apology was accepted. She has also paid full reparation and has pleaded guilty to the charges against her at the earliest opportunity. All of this is evidence of remorse.

(e) Plea of guilty

19. The accused has pleaded guilty to the charges against her at the earliest opportunity. This is not only a sign of remorse but it has saved the Court and the prosecution time and resources.

Discussion

20. This is not an easy case to sentence because of the gravity of the offending on one hand and the evidence of full reparation and the degree of remorse shown by the accused on the other hand. I have carefully weighed up the aggravating and mitigating features of this case as well as the accused’s prospects for rehabilitation and have decided to give the accused a second chance to redeem herself. In so doing, I am mindful of the theft as a servant cases of Police v Rudnick [2010] WSSC 48 where the accused misappropriated a total of $4,100 and was sentenced by Slicer J to pay a fine of $1,000 and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and Police v Smith [2013] WSSC 4 ( cited by defence counsel) where the accused misappropriated a total of $6,818 and was sentenced by Vaai J to 18 months supervision and ordered to pay $2,000 costs to the prosecution. I have also not overlooked the guidelines decision in R v Barrick [1985] 81 Cr. App. R 78 which was adopted by this Court in Police v Taala [2005] WSSC 28; Police v Ulupoao [2007] WSSC 21; Police v Iteli [2009] WSSC 12.
21. For this case, the accused is placed on supervision for 12 months and ordered to pay $1,000 costs to the prosecution.
    

Honourable Chief Justice Sapolu