By Linny Folau
Saimone Vaka’s appeal arguing that his sentence was manifestly excessive was dismissed by the Appeal Court on 20 November. He is currently serving two years six months imprisonment for the theft of meat valued at around $307,050.
He was found guilty of theft, after a trial before judge alone at the Supreme Court in May last year, He did not appeal against his conviction. He was tried with four other co-offenders and sentenced to his prison term, with no part suspended.
The complainant was Raymond Yu whose business included the wholesale sale of meat at Star Fish company in Ma'ufanga. The appellant lived behind Mr Yu's warehouse and one of his employees, Andy Lavelua had a key to the meat containers.
In that case, the sentencing judge found that over the months of July to August 2022, the appellant and Lavelua stole over 200 cartons of mutton and over 200 cartons of whole chicken. Two of the accused were charged with receiving stolen property. One bought over 20 cartons from the appellant and sold them to different stores and households. Another bought over 60 cartons and sold them.
Police recovered 53 cartons of mutton and 76 cartons of whole chickens from various stores and householders and were returned to the complainant. The appellant relied on this as a mitigating factor.
The primary judge found that Mr Lavelua sought the assistance of the appellant to help him steal the boxes of mutton and chicken to sell for their benefit and benefit of others. She also found that the appellant and Lavelua planned and organised the theft and that the appellant was the ringleader of the offending.
In relation to Lavelua, the primary judge found that the offence would not have occurred if he had not informed the appellant of having the keys to the container in his possession.
The Appeal Court state that these findings were not challenged. They were supported by an admission by the appellant to a Probation Officer that he was the mastermind of the operation.
The sentencing judge in summarising the aggravating and mitigating factors put forth by the Crown was that: he was not a first time offender, the value of the stolen property (20kg x 743 cartons of mutton valued at $300 each and 765 cartons of whole chicken valued at $110) was a substantial amount totalling at $307,650. Only 20kg of 53 cartons ($15,900) and 76 cartons of chicken ($8,360) were recovered during the course of the police investigation, stated the Appeal Court.
It was clear from the trial that the accused did not dispute that he was the ringleader and that he did steal several cartons of meat from the complainant's container. His case was that the amount he was being charged with is incorrect.
The fact that the accused had previous convictions for property offences was a serious aggravating feature in this case.
After considering the primary judge's reasons for her verdict the Appeal Court found that the sentence arrived at was within her sentencing discretion.
The Appeal Court said the sentencing judge had the advantage of seeing the appellant give evidence at the trial that led to his conviction.
“She found that his nonchalant demeanour in court gave the impression of someone who knew he was guilty but just wanted his day in court,” stated the Appeal Court.
"Although there was disparity of sentences between co-offenders of equal degree of culpability may give rise to a legitimate grievance, the same is not necessarily true of decisions on suspension of sentence. Questions of prospects of rehabilitation are critical to a decision whether to suspend a sentence and are necessarity particular to the individual."
The Appeal Court then dismissed the appeal.
