Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 247 OF 2016S
STATE
vs
SERA VAKULA
Counsels : Mr. T. Qalinauci for State
Ms. L. David for Accused
Hearing : 9 September, 2016
Judgment : 11 August, 2017
JUDGMENT
Statement of Offence
UNLAWFUL IMPORTATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS: Contrary to section 4(1) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004.
Particulars of Offence
SERA VAKULA on the 16th day of December 2015 at Suva in the Central Division, without lawful authority imported an illicit drug namely Methamphetamine, weighing 27.4 grams.
“...Fatu appealed against sentences imposed by the High Court following guilty pleas to charges of manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine, conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, wilful neglect of children and receiving stolen property. Fatu’s offending occurred both before and after the May 2003 reclassification of methamphetamine from a class B to a class A controlled drug. Police search Fatu’s residence and located precursor chemicals, equipment and manufacturing materials, together with stolen property worth over $20,000. Fatu was charged in connection with the substances and stolen property, and was released on bail. While he was on bail, Fatu’s premises were again searched and further evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine was gathered. Fatu’s offending extended over more than seven months. The High Court imposed concurrent sentences, the lengthiest of which was nine years for manufacturing methamphetamine after it was reclassified as a class A drug, discounting from a starting point of eleven years...”
The New Zealand Court of Appeal dismissed Fatu’s appeal.
“Methamphetamine abuse can fairly be characterised as the most serious drug problem the country faces at present. The various ways in which the drug threatens the community are well-known. Methamphetamine is a particularly destructive drug for users; it is highly addictive with profound mental and physical side-effects. It induces aggressive and irrational behaviour, and is regularly responsible for other offending involving extreme violence, a phenomenon not commonly associated with other drugs. It has created a thriving industry, in which organised crime is heavily involved at all levels. The manufacturing process is particularly dangerous. It is submitted with respect, that if it is appropriate to draw any distinction between Class A drugs, methamphetamine can fairly lay claim to a place in the most serious category.”
“...(a) Band one – low-level supply (less than 5 g) – two years’ to four years’ imprisonment.
(b) Band two – supplying commercial quantities (5g to 250 g) – three years’ to nine years’ imprisonment.
(c) Band three – supplying large commercial quantities (250g to 500g) – eight years’ to 11 years’ imprisonment.
(d) Bad four – supplying very large commercial quantities (500g or more) – ten years’ to life imprisonment.
We emphasise that these are starting points, before taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offender (as opposed to the offending). We also note that supply in small quantities where there is no commerciality and no other aggravating features may call for starting points less than those indicated as appropriate for band one ...” (page 80)
“... (a) Band one – low level importing (less than 5g) 0 two years six months to four years six months’ imprisonment.
(b) Band two – importing commercial quantities (5g to 250g) – three years six months’ to ten years’ imprisonment.
(c) Band three importing large commercial quantities (250g to 500g) – 9 years to 13 years’ imprisonment.
(d) Band four – importing very large commercial quantities (500g or more) – 12 years’ to life imprisonment.
The indication, in cases where small quantities of methamphetamine have been imported
for personal consumption, it is open to sentencing Judges to treat band one as not
applicable. We emphasise that these bands are otherwise applicable to all who import
methamphetamine, including those whose roles are as “mules”. Obviously the more
significant the role of the offender in any importation, the closer the appropriate sentence
will be to the top end of the relevant sentencing band ...” (page 81)
“... (a) Band one – not applicable for reasons given in para (42).
(b) Band two – manufacturing up to 250g – 4 years’ to 11 years’ imprisonment.
(c) Band three – manufacturing large commercial quantities (250g to 500g) – 10 years’ to 15 years imprisonment.
(d) Band four – manufacturing very large commercial quantities (500g or more) – 13 years’ to life imprisonment.
The sentence imposed must reflect not only the quantity of the drug involved but also the role of the particular offender in the manufacturing ring in question...” (page 82)
“Any person who, without lawful authority –
(a) Acquires, supplies possesses, produces, manufactures, cultivates, uses or administers an illicit drugs; or
(b) Engages in any dealings with any other person for the transfer transport, supply, use, manufacture, offer, sale, import or export of an illicit drug.
Section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004 treated the verbs “acquires, supplies, possesses, produces, manufactures, cultivates, uses or administers an illicit drug” equally. All the verbs are treated equally. In other words, all the offending verbs or offending actions are treated equally. “Supplies, possesses, manufactures and cultivates” are treated equally, and none of the offending actions are given any higher or lower standing, as far as section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004 was concerned. It follows that the penalties applicable to possession, must also apply to the offending verbs of “acquire, supplies, produces, manufactures, cultivates, uses or administers”. That is the will of Parliament, as expressed in the words of section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004. Consequently, the four categories mentioned above, apply to each of the verbs mentioned in section 5(a) of the 2004 Act mentioned above. The weight of the particular illicit drug will determine which category the case falls under, and the applicable penalty that will apply. It is also suggested that, the application of the four categories mentioned in paragraph 115 hereof to section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004, be extended to the offending verbs or offending actions in section 5(b) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004. This will introduce some measure of consistency in how sentences are passed for offending against section 5(a) and 5(b) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004. This will enhance the objective and purpose of the 2004 Act, as highlighted in paragraph 111 hereof”.
Salesi Temo
JUDGE
Solicitor for State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Suva.
Solicitor for Accused : Legal Aid Commission, Suva.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2017/963.html