By Linny Folau

Siaosi Halaholo Vete who was sentenced to two years imprisonment for charges of serious housebreaking and theft of property totaling at around $30,798 from his sister’s home, in order to feed his methamphetamine habit, had his appeal against his sentence dismissed.

Appeal Judges Randerson, Harrison and Morrison, in their judgment on 16 May, found that the appellant had not demonstrated that his sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

He was charged with three counts that included serious housebreaking, and two for theft of the goods. In respect of each count, the appellant was sentenced last year by Lord Chief Justice Bishop to two years' imprisonment with the final six months suspended for a period of six months. He challenged those sentences contending they are manifestly excessive and that the final period of suspension should have been be increased to 12 months.

The Appeal Court stated that the appellant was 42 years old at the time of sentence. One complainant was his sister and the other was her husband. The incidents took place while the complainants were overseas. Only some of the property was recovered. The appellant had previous convictions, the most recent of which was in 2022. He had no previous convictions for housebreaking or theft. He entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and cooperated with police.

The sentencing remarks revealed how the sentencing judge approached the task of fixing an appropriate sentence. After setting out the nature of the offences and the Crown's Indicative Sentence, it referred to the following: the pre-sentence report which recommended full suspension and referred to the appellant's methamphetamine addiction; that the offences occurred on two occasions whilst the owners (his sister and her husband) were abroad; the conduct was "singularly reprehensible" in that it was the sister's home and she was away with her husband; the property involved a substantial amount, and much of the goods had not been recovered, among others.

The Appeal Court stated that it has long been established that to succeed on the ground of manifest excess in sentencing, it was not enough to show that the sentence imposed was different from, or even markedly different from, other examples of sentences in other cases.

“Rather, it was necessary to demonstrate that there must have been a misapplication of principle or that the sentence imposed is "unreasonable or plainly unjust". Further. it has long been held that sentencing judges are to be allowed as much flexibility in sentencing as is consonant with consistency of approach, and as accords with the statutory regime that applies. Cases that are said to be comparable do not mark with precision the outer bounds of a sentencing judge's discretion in imposing a sentence in another case,” stated the Appeal Court.

The judgment pointed out that to succeed “the appellant must demonstrate that the sentence imposed was beyond the permissible range, not that it was severe, or that a lesser punishment would have been appropriate, or even more appropriate that the one in fact imposed.

"There is no one right penalty in any case. There is always a range of permissible sentences. Different judges legitimately put weight on different circumstances and their opinions must be respected unless the sentence imposed is beyond the allowable range or is otherwise affected by an error of fact or law.

“In our view the appellant has not demonstrated that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This is due to several reasons including: because the start-point was one amply supported by authority, the reductions made (12 months for the early plea and a further six months for the  complainants' forgiveness and the family prospects, cannot be said to be so out of the range of possibilities that they demonstrate error."

In addition, the Appeal Court stated that the period of suspension cannot be said to be beyond the range of possible outcomes, given: much of the stolen property had not been recovered; the offending was on two occasions, against the same complainants and the learned sentencing judge took into account the appellant's background, which included the fact that his offending was to feed a drug addiction, among others.

The appeal was dismissed.

As of background, the appellant from 'Anana was sentenced in November last year when he stole from his sister and her husband’s residence, first in October, 2023, when they were abroad. Traditional woven baskets (kato alu) that were displayed on a shelf inside had been stolen. The value of the baskets was $16,000.

The second incident occurred between 23 December 2023 to 29 January 2024, when the couple were again abroad. They packed most of their valuable belongings and hid them inside their vehicle. The stolen items and their value included three large kato alu baskets, kiekie, perfumes, cameras, speakers, jewelleries, clothes, handbags, and alcohol among other items.

The sister made another complaint to the Police regarding the stolen items from the vehicle resulting in his arrest.