SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taina [2018] WSSC 104

Case name: 	Police v Taina	
		
Citation: 	[2018] WSSC 104	
		
Decision date: 	07 September 2018	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution)
SEUTATIA TAINA @ SEUTATIA TAINA PAAA female of Aai o Fiti and Foalalo Savaii. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 	S953/18, S969/18	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On the charge of forgery convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
On the second charge of altering a document following a similar process convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison concurrent term.  Any time that you have spent in custody in relation to this matter should be deducted from your 18-month total term	
		
Representation: 	Ms Faasii for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	- convicted of forgery and theft - sentence not of imprisonment - restitution and community service - procuring an abortion - not sent to prison - sentenced to supervision - more serious penalty - false document - defendant admitted - pleaded guilty -  forgery - altering a document with intent to deceive - poses negative image - ruins the reputation - deterrent message - aggravating factors - criminal record – convicted and sentenced.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	SEUTATIA TAINA @ SEUTATIA TAINA PAAA female of Aai o Fiti and Foalalo Savaii.
Defendant

Counsel:	
Ms Faasii for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence:	07 September 2018

SENTENCE
1.	Seutatia is not a recidivist thief like the previous offender but she does have a previous conviction. In 2009 when she was convicted of forgery and theft and misleading the police.  On that occasion the court gave a chance to Seutatia and she received a sentence not of imprisonment but of restitution and community service. 
2.	In 2014 Seutatia appeared again before the court on a charge of procuring an abortion.  Again the court gave Seutatia a chance she was not sent to prison she was sentenced to supervision.  It is sad to see young lady that you are appearing before the court again which means you have failed to make use of the chances you have been given.  It is clear the court must now impose a more serious penalty commensurate with your offending. 
3.	The police summary of facts which has been admitted by the defendant says she is a 30-year-old female of Aai o Fiti and Foalalo in Savaii married with two children.  At the time of this offending she was employed by the Ministry of Women Community and Social Development. She was a Procurement Officer for the Samoa Women Shaping Development Project, an aid project funded by the Australian Government.  The project is stated to be for helping and developing women in small businesses.  
4.	According to the summary of facts qualified participants provide quotes from their suppliers and these quotes were then given to the defendant to process.  She was authorized to issue Purchase Order to the suppliers.  During the month of February 2018 the defendant produced a false document namely a Purchase Order 0WS019002 knowing it to be false and with the intent to facilitate purchase of goods from SMI Hardware Company Limited.  
5.	The false Purchase Order was in fact a duplicate of an original Purchase Order used by the company in 2017. The summary of facts say the defendant received $500 for this false Purchase Order.  Internal investigation uncovered the false document and when questioned the defendant admitted to a member of the SMI Company that she produced the document. The matter was referred to the police, when questioned by police on 16 June 2018 the defendant again admitted to producing the false Purchase Order.  
6.	As a result of these matters the defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of forgery and one charge of altering a document with intent to deceive.  The aggravating factors of the defendants offending includes the breach of trust of her employer. She was tasked with the responsibility of processing documents for an aid programme on behalf of a Government Ministry.  There is also pre-meditation and planning in this type of offending.  And the fact that what was used was international project aid funds. Funds which are made available to help the economic development of this country, your country and my country.  
7.	As noted in the Victim Impact Report from the Ministry concerned the Chief Executive Officer says the misuse of project funds clearly has had negative effects on the successful delivery of project works and the quality of work is also affected. This also “poses negative image on the Ministry and it certainly ruins the reputation of the Ministry particularly its dealing with development partners, suppliers of goods and services as well as other stakeholders.” 
8.	There is no question that these circumstances are serious enough to warrant a penalty of imprisonment. You madam need to be held accountable for your actions. Your conduct needs to be denounced publically and a deterrent message to you and to the public needs to be sent.  The only question for me is what penalty is appropriate. 
9.	Firstly the charge of forgery. The maximum penalty for this at law is 10 years in prison.  Considering the circumstances in particular that only one document was involved in this offending and that the sum in issue appears to be less than $2,000, I accept the prosecution start point of 3 years in prison.  That must be uplifted to 4 years because of your bad record.  But from that start point you are entitled to certain deductions which I will now make.  
10.	The summary of facts is not clear but the other documents attached to the summary seem to indicate that restitution of some sort has been made.  I will give you the benefit of any doubt and I will give you full credit for restitution of 6 months deducted from the 4 year start point, leaves 3½ years. 
11.	The documents before me indicate that you made an apology to the complainant Ministry. This is confirmed by the Victim Impact Report and I accept your personal apology to the court. These are all indications of true remorse for your actions. For that I will deduct a further 6 months, leaves 3 years.
12.	You have pleaded guilty to these charges, you have therefore saved the courts time and limited resources. For that I will deduct one-quarter of the remaining balance of sentence that is a period of 9 months, leaves a balance of 2¼ years.
13.	Pre-sentence report indicates you have a young family, you have a one-year-old and you are breastfeeding a less than 6 months old baby.  I will try and alleviate the effects on these innocent children of your offending I will deduct a further 6 months, leaves 18 months in prison.  
14.	There are no other adjustments that can be made to your sentence, on the charge of forgery convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. 
15.	On the second charge of altering a document following a similar process convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison concurrent term.  Any time that you have spent in custody in relation to this matter should be deducted from your 18-month total term
16.	The final matter in this sentencing is that it should be of concern to the Ministry of Women Community and Social Development that you were employed even though you had a criminal record for forgery and theft.  It is not clear how this happened but this should at some stage in the process have raised some red flags. Ultimately the decision by the Ministry to employ you has cost the Ministry and to a degree the reputation of the aid scheme.  It is therefore appropriate to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry in question to take whatever action she may consider necessary.  And I will order that be done.
_____________________
JUSTICE NELSON