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

Police v Lilomaiava [2025] WSSC 112 (16 December 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lilomaiava [2025] WSSC 112 (16 December 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

AND:

FALANIKO PETELO SIONE LILOMAIAVA,

Defendant

Counsel: T Roma for Prosecution
Defendant for himself

Date: 16 December 2025

SENTENCE OF TUATAGALOA J

1. The defendant appears for sentence on three (3) sets of offending that took place on the following dates:

13 - 14 September 2025:

Burglary/Theft

2. According to the agreed summary of facts, on Saturday, 13^th September 2025 the complainants, a husband and wife, departed their residence at around 8pm and did not return until 1am the following morning (14 September). Later that morning, the wife observed that four (4) louvre panes from their bedroom window had been removed and the wire screen torn. Upon further inspection, the complainants discovered that two (2) boxes of Woodstock alcohol, each valued at $200, were missing.

Taking motor vehicle without consent

3. On the morning of 14 September 2025, the complainants were approached by one of their tenants residing in an apartment on their property. The tenant reported that his rental vehicle, a silver Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number 18906, which had been parked outside the apartment, had been stolen. The vehicle was valued at $22,000.
4. On 18 September 2025, police officers attended the defendant’s family residence in search of him, but he was not present. The family informed police that the defendant had returned home intoxicated and in possession of a stolen vehicle. That vehicle was subsequently located, locked and unattended, in front of the C Store at Alafua. It was later returned to its owner, Alnima Motors, the rental company.

30th September 2025

Burglary/Theft

5. The complainant, an Australian citizen residing at the Motootua Town Houses, reported that at approximately 5:00am on 30 September 2025 the defendant unlawfully entered his residence. During the break-in, the defendant stole a Samsung Galaxy S25 mobile phone valued at $3,138 and a Sony television (55 inches) valued at $1,046. The Sony television was subsequently recovered and returned to the complainant.
6. The defendant’s image was captured on the security camera installed outside the front entrance of the complainant’s residence.

Taking motor vehicle without consent

7. The defendant also stole the complainant’s rental vehicle, a red Toyota Ractis bearing registration number 47206, which had been parked outside the residence. On 1 October 2025, the owner of the rental vehicle observed it being driven on the road and notified police. The vehicle was subsequently located abandoned at Apaula Heights and has since been returned to its owner.

1st October 2025

Burglary/Theft

8. The victims, Chinese citizens employed as engineers with the China-Aid Project and residing at Motootua, reported that in the early hours of the morning the defendant unlawfully entered their apartment. During the intrusion, the defendant stole a black iPhone 12 valued at $2,000 and a Xiaomi mobile phone valued at $1,000.

The Defendant

9. The defendant is a 23-year-old male from Lalovaea, Tanugamanono, and Satupaitea, Savai‘i. He has a prior conviction for similar offending in 2024, for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fourteen months commencing in November 2024.

Discussion

10. It appears that the defendant committed the present offences not long after his release from prison, where he had served a term of imprisonment for similar offending. His conduct on this occasion is aptly characterized as a burglary spree, involving a series of break-ins committed within a short period of time.
11. The offending involved multiple victims and the theft of property of significant value. The defendant targeted residences that were unoccupied, as well as rental homes predominantly occupied by non-Samoans. In several instances, he entered these homes while the occupants were asleep. In addition to breaking into the residences and stealing property, he also stole vehicles parked outside. The defendant’s actions demonstrate a disregard for the safety and security of the victims and their property. In the circumstances, a custodial sentence is the appropriate penalty.
12. The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s early guilty plea. Some of the stolen property has been recovered and returned, namely the two vehicles and the Sony television. The defendant was apprehended only after his family reported him to police, having recognized his image on the Police Facebook page.
13. The Court adopts a totality approach in sentencing. For the offence of burglary, which is the most serious and carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment, the Prosecution recommended a custodial sentence with a starting point of five to six years. The Court accepts a starting point of five years. Applying a reduction of 25% (equivalent to fifteen months) for the early guilty plea, the resulting sentence is 45months or 3 years and 9 months.
14. For the remaining offences, the defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
    • Theft (x3): 30 months or 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for each count.
    • Taking vehicle without the owners’ consent (x2): 7 months’ imprisonment for each offending.
15. All sentences to be concurrent. That is, the defendant is to serve 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA