SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Maposua [2016] WSSC 116

Case name: 	Police v Maposua	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 116	
		
Decision date: 	20 May 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v DARREN LOSE MAPOSUA
male of Laulii and Gagaifolevao

Hearing date(s): 	20 May 2016 	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1.	For the charge of burglary, the accused is convicted sentenced to 5 weeks imprisonment. 
2.	For the charge of intentional damage, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 5 weeks imprisonment.
3.	For the charge of theft the accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.
4.	All sentences to be served concurrently so that he will serve a total of 5 weeks imprisonment. This is to be followed by 6 months supervision with a special condition of supervision that he attend and complete the 6 weeks program for alcohol and drugs conducted by the Alcohol and Drugs Court. (Toe Afua se Taeao Fou). 

Representation: 	O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section.174 to section.184(2)(b), section 161 and 165(c) 	
		
Cases cited:	Rio v Police [2011] NZHC 1002 Police v Ajawas [2013] WSSC 49 (31 July 2013) Iwikau v Police [2012] NZHC 2027.	
		
Summary of decision:		

		
SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

DARREN LOSE MAPOSUA  male of Laulii and Gagaifolevao
Accused

Counsel:
O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 20 May 2016

S E N T E N C E
The charges
1.	The accused appears for sentence on three charges, one of burglary, contrary to s.174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, one of intentional damage , contrary to s.184(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and one of theft pursuant to ss 161 and 165(c) Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.  
1.	He pleaded guilty to the charges on 25 April 2016.
The offending 
2.	According to the summary of facts admitted by the accused, on 29 March 2016, the accused went to the complainant’s home. He tore the screen wire of one of the windows of the complainant’s house and used a brick to smash a glass window sheet. The accused then went inside the house through the window and stole the following items;
•	One binocular valued at SAT$130.00;
•	One bushnell binocular with case valued at SAT$160.00;
•	Four small vailima bottles valued at SAT$18.00;
•	One bottle of red wine valued at SAT$35.00;
•	One nokia cell phone with charger valued at SAT$80.00; and
•	One Panasonic cordless phone valued at SAT$199.00.
3.	The total value of the stolen property is SAT$622.00.
4.	While at the complainant’s house the accused damaged 24 security lights placed outside the house.
5.	The value of the damaged property is as follows;
•	Smashed glass window valued at SAT$350.00;
•	24 security lights valued at SAT$900.00; and
•	Torn fly screen wire valued at SAT $70.00.
6	The total value of the property damaged by the accused is SAT$1320.00.
Background of the accused
7	The accused is 25 years old, single with one child and self-employed. He lives at Laulii with his child and has a construction business where he earns $400.00 per week.  
8	His father told probation that the accused is hardworking, reliable and caring. He is said to be his parent’s right hand when it comes to village and church contributions.
9	Due to the offending having taken place while the accused was intoxicated, the accused was ordered by the Court on 25 April 2016 to attend the 6 weeks program for alcohol and drugs. Sapolu CJ made it very clear to the accused that he was released on bail to attend the program. The accused has completed only two weeks of the program telling Probation that he was too busy with his construction work.
10	There has been no confirmation of reconciliation for this matter.
11	The accused is a first offender.  
The Victim
12	No Victim Impact Report was provided by Prosecution to the Court. The only fact from the summary of facts is that the victim is a female from Letogo.
13	Prosecution has been advised on previous occasions that a victim impact report is needed by the Court where there is a victim of the offending, even if not ordered by the Court.
The Aggravating Features of the Offending
14	Prosecution submits that an aggravating feature is that the accused violated the home of the victim. I agree that this is an aggravating factor. It appears from the New Zealand burglary  cases that home entry or entry into a private dwelling house is an aggravating factor relating to the offending, for example, Rio v Police [2011] NZHC 1002, para [27]. This is also the position of this Court in Police v Ajawas [2013] WSSC 49 (31 July 2013).
15	It is aggravating that damage to the victim’s house was extensive and the value of the damage was significant, being $1320.00. This is damage that must be repaired and replaced by the victim. A window sheet and twenty four security lights were damaged by the accused. This type of excessive damage is indicative of someone who has absolutely no respect for others and their property. 
Aggravating features of the offender
16	I consider an aggravating feature in respect of the accused is that he failed to comply with a condition of his bail that he attend and complete the 6 weeks alcohol and drugs program as directed by this Court. His excuse that he has been busy with construction work is unacceptable. 
Mitigating Factors
17	The only mitigating factor is that the accused entered early guilty pleas to his charges.  
Discussion
18	Prosecution has recommended a sentence of supervision with special conditions. 
19	The case of Police v Ajawas which cites the categories of burglaries in Iwikau v Police [2012] NZHC 2027, says that for first time burglars, a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed but frequently this was not the case.
20	 The accused is a first time burglar but the excessive damage he caused to the victim’s home, in particular the 24 security lights, was extensive and unwarranted. This is a significant aggravating feature.
21	It is also a significant aggravating feature in respect of the accused that he did not abide by a condition of his bail. This condition is an important one as it was an attempt by the Court to address his offending behaviour. He chose to discard this valuable opportunity given by the Court to his detriment.  
22	Having considered the aggravating factors relating to the offending as well as taking into account the sentencing objectives of retribution, deterrence, the need for protection of society, and rehabilitation, I have decided that it is appropriate to impose a custodial sentence in this case followed by a term of supervision.  The starting point for sentence is 6 weeks imprisonment. I will add 2 weeks for the accused failure to comply with a bail condition. That increases the starting point to 8 weeks. I will deduct 3 weeks for his early guilty pleas. That leaves 5 weeks.
Sentence
23	For the charge of burglary, the accused is convicted sentenced to 5 weeks imprisonment. 
24	For the charge of intentional damage, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 5 weeks imprisonment.
25	For the charge of theft the accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.
26	All sentences to be served concurrently so that he will serve a total of 5 weeks imprisonment. This is to be followed by 6 months supervision with a special condition of supervision that he attend and complete the 6 weeks program for alcohol and drugs conducted by the Alcohol and Drugs Court. (Toe Afua se Taeao Fou). 

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN