SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Mataio [2015] WSSC 185

Case name: 	Police v Mataio	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 185	
		
Decision date: 	23 November 2015	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v HARRY MATAIO a male of Vailoa and Moataa.

Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S3429/14-S3430/14	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Sapolu	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	Convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.  
-	Any time he has already spent in custody to await the outcome of these proceedings is to be deducted from that sentence.

Representation: 	P Chang for prosecution
Accused in person 	
		
Catchwords: 	Intentionally causing damage to property – maximum penalty – aggravating and mitigating features – previous convictions – a  recidivist offender – starting point for sentencing – sentence 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.184 (2) (a)	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO:  S3429/14-S3430/14

BETWEEN

P  O  L  I  C  E
Prosecution

A  N  D

HARRY MATAIO a male of Vailoa and Moataa.
Accused

Counsel:	
P Chang for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	23 November 2015

S E N T E N C E 
The charges
1. 	The accused Tavita Mataio a 28 year old male of Vailoa and Moataa appears for sentence on one charge of intentionally causing damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.  To the charge, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending 
2. 	As shown from the prosecution’s summary of facts admitted by the accused, on 8 November 2015 at around 6:30pm in the evening, an employee of the complainant, the Samoa Tourism Authority in Apia, was working late in her office.  She was shocked when a nearby window was shattered and a rock landed on her desk.  She then saw a male who later turned out to be the accused trying to enter through the space of the shattered window.  When she was seen by the accused, the accused ran away.  However, the other employees of the Samoa Tourism Authority who were also working late were too fast for him.  They caught the accused and held him until the police arrived.  The cost of the damage to the window is $2,000.
The accused 
3. 	The accused is single and unemployed.  He is no stranger to the Courts.  He has numerous previous convictions starting from 1990 when he was about 15 years old for offences of burglary, attempted burglary, theft, escape from lawful custody, causing willful damage, drunkenness, and possession narcotics.  He is a recidivist offender. 
4. 	According to the summary of facts, the accused was standing behind the building of the Samoa Tourism Authority and then picked up a rock and threw it at one of the windows of the building.  I do not believe what the accused told the probation service, as shown from the pre-sentence report, that he threw a stone at people who were throwing stones at him and this stone he threw hit a window of the Samoa Tourism Authority building.  This does not explain why the accused then followed through by trying to enter the building through the space in the shattered window.
The aggravating and mitigating features
5. 	The aggravating features relating to the offending are the use of a rock and the value of the window that was damaged.  Perhaps, the accused is fortunate that he is also not charged with attempted burglary because he tried to enter the building through the shattered window.  However, the prosecution may have good reason for not bringing a charge of attempted burglary.
6. 	In relation to the accused as offender, his numerous previous convictions are an aggravating feature.
7. 	The accused’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity is a mitigating feature relating to him as offender. 
Discussion 
8. 	Having considered the aggravating features relating to the offending, I will take a starting point of 12 months imprisonment.  I will add on the 6 months for previous convictions being an aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender.  That increases the starting point to 18 months imprisonment. I will deduct 3 months for the guilty plea.  That leaves 15 months. 
The result 
9. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.  Any time he has already spent in custody to await the outcome of these proceedings is to be deducted from that sentence.
CHIEF JUSTICE