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

Police v Vaovasa [2016] WSSC 68 (14 April 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Vaovasa [2016] WSSC 68

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

MARETA VAOVASA, female of Aai of Fiti and Satuimalufilufi
Defendant

Counsel:
Ms F Ioane for Prosecution
Defendant in Person

Sentence: 14 April 2016

SENTENCING OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

1. The accused pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft as a servant. The penalty for each charge is maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.
2. The accused confirmed the summary of facts by the prosecution which basically says:
   • The accused at the time was working as head cashier for Samoa Breweries Limited. Her duties are:
     • − to reconcile the cash sales from the deliveries at the end of each day;
     • − to have custody or keep the cash sales in safe custody;
     • − to bank the cash sales from the day before the next day.
   • The accused would take some of the money and would therefore delay banking so that the cash sales of the next day or days will make up for monies she was taking.
   • The accused took various amounts within a three month period from 09 January 2015 – 03 March 2015.
   • The total amount the accused took was $21, 972.65ST.
3. The accused is 22 years’ old, is a first offender and although did not plead guilty to all charges at first mentions, she nevertheless vacated her not guilty pleas to that of guilty. Instead of the usual 1/3 discount, I will allow a 25% discount for change of pleas.
4. The accused has a young family of two children with the youngest a four month old baby. From the pre-sentence report, the accused since leaving school after Year 13 has always found employment and has been employed since she left school.
5. The prosecution refers the Court to various sentences imposed by the Court on this offence with similar amounts taken. What is noticeable is that the sentences imposed in the cases referred to are all of custodial sentences.
6. The prosecution has never wavered from its stance of custodial sentences as a means of deterrence for most offences. This is a great point if the prosecution has any data to back up their stance that the continuous imposition of custodial sentences on these offences has resulted in a decline in the number of people committing offences. Despite continuous custodial sentences being imposed people are still continually stealing from their employers. Custodial therefore will only act as deterrence against some people who are imprisoned from
   re-offending but doubt very much it is deterring others from committing offences.
7. The aggravating features of this offending is the breach of trust, the significant amount taken over a short period of three months and the planning involved in the taking of the money.
8. I will not place too much weight on the accused’s first offender status as I would on someone twice her age but I will however take her age of 22 years old as relative young into account.
9. A starting point of four years’ imprisonment; less four months for first offender status; less eight months for her young age; less six months taking into account her young family. This leaves two and a half years (30 months). I will give 25% discount for change of plea of eight months. This leaves 22 months.
10. The accused is convicted and sentenced to one year and 10 months’ imprisonment for each offence, all to be served concurrently.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA