IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tafeaga [2025] WSSC 47 (2 May 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Tafeaga 	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 47	
		
Decision date: 	2 May 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v FA’AFOUINA PUA’AVASE SA’U TAFEAGA, male of Apolima-uta and Lufilufi	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	2024-02019 SC/CR/UP	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Senior Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	In respect of the two counts of burglary you will be convicted on both charges and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison. Remand in custody time to be deducted from that. 

In respect of the two theft charges you will be convicted on both charges and sentenced to 18 months in prison each charge, but terms to be served concurrent to the burglary charges.	
		
Representation: 	J. Leung Wai for prosecution 
Defendant unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	Burglary – theft – occurred multiple times – breach of trust.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 161; 165(b); 174.	
		
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:

FA’AFOUINA PUA’AVASE SA’U TAFEAGA male of Apolima-uta and Lufilufi.

Defendant

Counsel:	J. Leung Wai for prosecution 
		Defendant unrepresented 

Sentence:	02 May 2025

SENTENCE
1. 	The defendant has pleaded guilty to four (4) charges, two (2) counts of burglary and two (2) counts of theft as follows: at Fugalei or between the 31st October 2023 and 01st January 2024, he entered a building namely, the Mobi Care Samoa owned by Shalom Fiaz, female of Afega and Toomatagi without authority and with intent to commit a crime, thereby committed the crime of burglary. 
2. 	The second charge is on the same date and place the defendant dishonestly took 12 Samsung cellphones valued at SAT$2,200.00 each to a total value of SAT$26,400.00, two Iphones valued at SAT$3,500.00 to a total value of SAT$7,000.00, five Redmi phones valued at SAT$450.00 each to a total value of SAT$2,250.00, five earpods valued at SAT15.00 each to a total value of SAT$750.00, ten chargers valued at SAT60.00 to a total value of SAT$600.00, all to a total value of $37,000.00 with intent to deprive Mobi Care Samoa permanently of the said properties. 
3. 	Third charge is that at Fugalei on 25 February 2024 he entered a building namely the Mobi Care Samoa owned by Shalom Fiaz, female of Afega and Toomatagi without authority and with intent to commit a crime, thereby committed the crime of burglary. 
4. 	And fourth charge at same place and date the defendant dishonestly took 6 Oppo cellphone valued at SAT$550.00 each to a total value of $3,300.00, 6 Samsung cellphone valued at $750.00 each to a total value of $4,500.00, 6 Vivo cellphone valued at SAT$550.00 each to a total value of SAT$3,300.00, 2 IPhone valued at SAT$700 each to a total value of $1,400.00, total value of stolen properties SAT$12,500 with intent to deprive Mobi Care Samoa permanently of the said properties. 
5. 	The Police Summary of Facts which the defendant admitted at a previous calling states the defendant is a 27 year old male of Apolima-uta and Lufilufi and was working as a security guard at the Fugalei Market at the time of the offending. 
6. 	The complainant is Shalom Fiaz, a 26 year old female of Afega and Toomatagi. She and her husband own Mobi Care Samoa, a business located at Fugalei market that sells phones, laptops and also repairs various types of electronics. The business was burgled by the defendant on two separate occasions.
7. 	The first incident occurred between 31 October 2023 and 1 January 2024 at Fugalei Market. The defendant broke into the complainants business through the entrance door, gaining unauthorized access to the premises.
8. 	Once inside he took the following items: 12 Samsung cellphones valued at SAT$2,200 each to a total value of SAT$26,400.00, 2 Iphones valued at SAT$3,500.00 each to a total value of SAT$7,000.00, 5 Redmi phones valued at $450.00 each to a total value of $2,250.00, 5 earpods valued at SAT$150.00 each to a total value of SAT$750.00 and 10 chargers valued at SAT$60.00 each to a total value of SAT $600.00. The total value of the properties stolen is SAT$37,000.00.
9. 	The second incident occurred on the 25 February 2024 at around 11:50 am. The defendant broke into the complainants business using an orange knife to unlock the entrance door, gaining unauthorized access to the premises. 
10. 	Once inside, he took the following items: 6 Oppo cellphone valued at SAT$550.00 each to a total value of SAT$3,300.00. 6 Vivo cellphone valued at SAT$550.00 each to a total value of SAT$3,300.00, 6 Samsung cellphone valued at SAT$750.00 to a total value of SAT$4,500.00 and 2 Iphone valued at SAT$700.00 each to a total value of SAT$1,400.00. The total value of property stolen by the defendant during the second incident amounts to SAT$12,500.00.
11. 	The defendant collected all items mentioned above, placed them in a white cooler and exited the store. After leaving the store the defendant placed the white cooler on the back seat of a taxi, got into the vehicle and left the area.
12. 	The following day the complainant discovered the burglary and reported the incident to the Police. On 11 April 2024 the defendant was arrested and escorted to Apia Police Station where he was cautioned, interviewed and formally charged with two (2) counts of burglary pursuant to section 174 of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of ten (10) years imprisonment; and two (2) counts of theft pursuant to section 161 and 165 (b) of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of seven (7) years if the value of the property stolen exceeds SAT$1,000.00.
13. 	At mentions on the 29 April 2024 the defendant pleaded guilty to three charges, two burglary and one of theft but pleaded not guilty to one charge of theft.
14. 	During the hearing on 19 March 2025 prosecution made application to amend charge 4 of theft. The charge was subsequently read to the defendant who then vacated his not guilty plea and a guilty plea was entered.
15. 	The items noted below were recovered by the Police and returned to the complainant: 1 Samsung IPad, 1 Digicel DL3 Plus Pro Mobile phone, 2 Samsung Tablet, 1 Vivo mobile phone, 1 Samsung Dual Sim Card mobile phone, 1 Oppo mobile phone and 1 Samsung mobile phone with red colour. 
16. 	Essentially this is a case where the defendant stole a number of items from the complainants shop and he has sold them. Some of the materials have been recovered, most have not. 
17. 	The defendant told the court that he has apologised to the complainant, it is now confirmed by the victim to the Probation Service that it is true that he did try to apologise but she rejected it because she was at the time angry. Because she knows the defendant, he used to hang around their shop and did odd jobs for them. She trusted the defendant and he repaid that trust by stealing from the business of her and her husband. 
18. 	This is a gross betrayal of trust and the offending in this case is aggravated by the fact that the defendant was employed as a security guard at the market place. He was employed to keep peoples property safe from burglars and yet he chose to become one.  He broke that trust as well. There is no question that those factors plus the high value of the goods stolen and the seriousness of this kind of offending means an imprisonment term must be imposed on the defendant even though he is a first offender. The courts sentence must reflect the gravity or “matuia “of the offending and hold the defendant accountable for his conduct. And it must also continue to send the message to everyone that this very prevalent crime of burglary and theft is regarded seriously by the courts of this country. 
19. 	Burglary carries a 10-year maximum penalty at law, the theft 7 years maximum penalty. 
20. 	The police have requested that sentence start from 5 to 6 years in prison because of the aggravating factors of your offending. Defendant I accept the offending is serious but I think the start point is a little high. Sentence will start at 4 years in prison. From that start point of sentence you are entitled to certain deductions for mitigating factors. To reflect the fact that you are a first offender, you have a good background according to the Pre-sentence Report, the usual 6 months deduction will apply. That leaves a balance of 3½ years in prison. 
21. 	The court accepts also that you attempted to apologise which was the right thing to do and it shows you have some remorse for your offending. The complainant quite properly and understandably rejected your apology Faafouina but you should still be given some credit for trying to make the apology in the first place. The normal 6 months deduction will also be applied for that fact, leaves a balance of 3 years in prison. 
22. 	The final factor that you are entitled to credit for is your guilty plea which has saved the courts an unnecessary waste of time. I note that you initially pleaded guilty to three (3) of the four (4) charges and when the fourth charge was amended by the Police, you then also entered a guilty plea to the amended charge. The usual deduction will apply for those guilty pleas, 9 months will be deducted from your balance of sentence, leaves 2 years and 3 months. 
23. 	In respect of the two counts of burglary you will be convicted on both charges and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison. Remand in custody time to be deducted from that. 
24. 	In respect of the two theft charges you will be convicted on both charges and sentenced to 18 months in prison each charge, but terms to be served concurrent to the burglary charges. 

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON