IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Paono [2025] WSSC 117 (18 December 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Paono	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 117 	
		
Decision date: 	18 December 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v NAMAIA PAONO male of Ti’avea and Laulii (Accused)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Loau Donald A. Kerslake	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced for the charges in the Charging Document dated 30 October 2025 as follows:

i)	For the charge of Burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment less time remanded in custody; and
ii)	For the charge of Theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent to the burglary charge above.

Your end sentence Namaia for the two charges is therefore 18 months’ imprisonment or 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment, less time remanded in custody. 

Representation: 	Ms. R. Fong for Prosecution
Accused appears in Person	
		
Catchwords: 	Burglary – theft – previous convictions – guilty plea – custodial sentence.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

NAMAIA PAONO, male of Ti’avea and Laulii.

Accused

Counsels:	Ms. R. Fong for Prosecution
		Accused appears in Person

Sentence:	18 December 2025

SENTENCE
The Charges
1. 	Namaia, you appear for sentence on one charge of burglary pursuant to section 174 of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a 10-year maximum term of imprisonment and one charge of theft pursuant to section 161 and 165(b) of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a 7-year maximum imprisonment term. 
The Offending
2. 	You have accepted the prosecution Summary of Facts dated 10 December 2025 which outlines the incident of burglary and theft which occurred on or between the 5 October and 8 October 2025.  Sometime during this period, you unlawfully entered a store at Saleufi named the Amanda Store by forcefully opening the door to the store.  Once you were inside the store, you took a number of items the total value equalling SAT$1269.90.   
3. 	These items included:
(i) 	20 boxes of Eleni valued at $320.00;
(ii) 	8 boxes of Corn Beef valued at $416.00;
(iii) 	3 boxes of Tuna valued at $279.90;
(iv) 	4 boxes of Noodles valued at $152.00; and
(v) 	2 boxes of Bongos valued at $102.00.
4. 	The only items which were recovered by Police and returned to the owner included 8 Corn Beef (12 Ounces), 15 McCoy’s Tuna, 6 Island Love Tuna and 1 Corn Beef (3lb).
The Background of the Accused
5. 	Namaia, you are a 25 year old male of Ti’avea and Laulii.   According to your probation report, at the time of the offending you were living at Laulii and were employed as a temporary security guard for the Seventh Day Adventist Church compound at Togafuafua or Saleufi.  You have prior convictions for similar offences of theft and burglary in 2018 and 2020 where you were convicted and sentenced to serve terms of imprisonment.    
The Victim
6. 	The victim of your offending is the owner of Amanda Store at Saleufi, Ms. Amanda Moala who runs the store on behalf of the Women’s Society for the SDA Church at Saleufi.  In her victim impact report Ms. Moala speaks of her disappointment because of the number of items taken which only a few were returned.   She speaks of the commitment by members of the Women’s Society of the SDA Church which helps supply the store which is normally given to those families in the church who are less fortunate and vulnerable in society.  She confirms that the church has fixed the damage to the door and that no apology has been made to her.       
Aggravating Features of the Offending
7. 	The following are the aggravating features of your offending:
(i) 	The high prevalence of burglary and theft in the community.
(ii) 	Premeditation.  I accept the submission by prosecution that your actions demonstrated a level of planning.
(iii) 	You committed your offending while still being employed as a security guard on the same premises you were employed to protect despite the fact that you were not on shift when the offending occurred.
(iv) 	Damage to the property.
(v) 	Total value of the amount of the items you took including the total value of the amount which was not recovered.
8. 	The only mitigating feature in respect of your offending is in relation to the items which were recovered and returned to the owner. 
Aggravating Features in respect of the Offender
9. 	The aggravating factor for you as an offender is your prior conviction for Theft and Burglary in 2018 and 2020.  You are therefore a recidivist offender. 
Mitigating Factors in respect of the Offender
10. 	The only mitigating factor I take into account in sentencing is your early guilty plea.  You have saved the court and prosecution time and costs of having to call and hear the evidence.  
Discussion
11. 	Burglary and theft in the community is on the rise. The courts have often voiced concerns over the prevalence of this type of offending. Burglary and theft from businesses in and around Apia has also become prolific, with many businesses burgled on multiple occasions.  
12. 	The fact that you were employed by the Seventh Day Adventist Church as a security guard for the premises where Amada Store is located renders your offending particularly serious. Although the burglary did not occur during your shift, the Court views theft by security personnel gravely, and such cases commonly result in imprisonment.   As His Honour Nelson J stated in Police v Oloapu [2015] WSSC 232:
	“The message must go out to all security guards. You are the last line of defence of an employer. Your job is to catch the thieves, not become one. This was a severe breach of trust by the defendants.”
13. 	That warning applies equally to you. While not directly employed by Amada, you were engaged by the SDA Church to guard its premises. The pre-sentence report confirms that your knowledge of the premises facilitated access to the store. 
14. 	This is not your first time before the Court. Despite prior warnings and opportunities, you have reoffended, demonstrating a lack of deterrence. I have considered the prosecution’s annex of comparable cases and other authorities. In sentencing you today, the Court’s purpose is to denounce your conduct, deter you and others from similar offending, and protect the community. 
15. 	In terms of the burglary and theft charges, taking into account the aggravating factors I determine that the appropriate start point for sentence is 2 years or 24 months’ imprisonment.   For your early guilty plea, I deduct 6 months.  This leaves a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.   
Result
16. 	Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced for the charges in the Charging Document dated 30 October 2025 as follows:
(i) 	For the charge of Burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment less time remanded in custody; and
(ii) 	For the charge of Theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent to the burglary charge above.
17. 	Your end sentence Namaia for the two charges is therefore 18 months’ imprisonment or 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment, less time remanded in custody. 
 JUSTICE KERSLAKE