R v Angilau [2021] TOSC 125; CR 271 of 2020 (3 August 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY

CR 271 of 2020

BETWEEN : REX

- Prosecution

AND : SIUELI ANGILAU

- Accused

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE NIU

Counsel : Mrs. Elisiva Lui for the Crown.

Mr. Siueli Angilau, the accused, for himself.

Trial : 22 and 23 June 2021

Submissions : by Mrs Lui filed 19 July 2021

By the accused in Court on 20 July 2021.

Verdict : 3 August 2021

VERDICT

The Charges

[1] The accused is charged under 4 counts in the indictment with the following offences:

Count 1 – possessing 0.55 gram of methamphetamine

Count 2 – possessing 222.59 grams of cannabis,

Count 3 – possessing 44.55 grams of cannabis, and

Count 4 – possessing 0.69 gram of cannabis,

at Fanga on 1 May 2020, contrary to s.4 (a) (iii) and 4 (a)(i) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act respectively.

[2] He elected to be tried by judge alone and to represent himself in this trial.

The Trial

[3] The Crown called and 6 police officers gave evidence. The accused gave evidence himself and called no witness.

Admission by accused of courts 1 and 4

[4] During the trial and in his evidence, the accused admitted that he was guilty of possessing the methamphetamine of 0.55 gram as charged in count 1 and of the cannabis of 0.69 gram of cannabis as charged in count 4, which were the drugs found in the little house.

The Crown evidence

[5] Inspector Malolo Vi, 38 years of age, officer in charge of the drug division at the Central Police Station at Nuku’alofa, said that at about 11 am of 1 May 2020, he received a telephone call from an informer who had supplied information to him for about a year and half. He said that over 10 operations had successfully been carried out as a result of information which this informer had provided. He therefore accepted that the information which the informer conveyed to him that morning was reliable. He said that the informer told him that drugs were presently being sold at the little house at the rear of the allotment of one Seiloni Ngaue at Taufa’ahau Road at Fanga, and that the person selling the drugs goes to the bush area behind the little house where the rubbish heap was and comes back with the drugs from there. He said that he knew the allotment because they had had drug operations on several occasions previously there.

[6] He said he decided to go and have a look first, and so he drove in a private vehicle past the place and saw a vehicle leaving the place. He drove past and turned around and drove back and he saw another vehicle driving down the side road to the little house at the rear. He said he then returned to the police station and got the team together and briefed them and that they came in 3 vehicles to the little house at the back.

[7] He said that the Tactical Response Group went into the little house first and that he then went inside. He said both the accused and his wife and their baby child were there, and that the accused was coughing and gagging and then he spat out of his mouth a pack of methamphetamine. He said that two other packs of the methamphetamine were found on the floor of the house, and a pack of cannabis was found by the police dog on the bed inside the little house. The little house only consisted of the one room.

[8] He said that he asked the accused whose were the drugs and that the accused said nothing but that the wife said that they were hers. He said that the accused then told her not to interfere and said that she was lying and that the drugs were his.

[9] He said that they then went to the bush area at the back of the little house where the rubbish heap was and the dog searched and found a plastic bag hidden at the foot of a saafa bush which contained some 60 packs of cannabis and $200 in cash. He said he asked the accused and his wife whose was that bag and that they both said that they did not know. He said that shortly after that another bag of cannabis, but which had not been packed into packs, was found hidden at another saafa bush about 4-5 meters away from the first bag. He said he asked the accused and the wife whose that bag was and that the accused said that he did not know. He said that he told them that they were charged with both the two bags of drugs.

[10] He then looked at 18 photographs taken during the search and which were produced in evidence together with other documents in one file, the pages of which were numbered from 1 to 49. He said that photos 9 and 10 showed the pack of cannabis and empty packs which were found on the bed in the little house. He said that the empty packs were new and that they were just like the pack which contained the cannabis found on the bed and he thought that they were, to him, a sign that there was cannabis to be packed in them.

[11] He said that photographs 12 and 15 showed the rubbish heap and where the rubbish heap was in the bush area at the back of the little house and that there was a clear track from the little house to the rubbish heap and on to where the two bags of cannabis were found and that it was clear that the track was being used quite often. He referred to the sketch plan which showed the allotment, the road beside it, the little house and the bush area behind it, the track from the little house to the area where the bags of cannabis were found and the spots where they were found.

[12] He also referred to the search list which listed the drugs which were found and he confirmed that he and the accused both signed it.

[13] In cross-examination, he said that he did not see any sale of drug being conducted when he drove past on the main road.

[14] It was put to him by the accused that he, the accused, was not present when the 2 bags of cannabis were found in the saafa bushes and that he was only led and shown the bags after they were found, and he said that what happened was, they, including the accused, all stood and watched while the officer with the dog went to the bush area, the dog leading the officer and that when the dog found something, the officer called and they, including the accused, went there.

[15] It was put to him that it was possible that an officer had gone beforehand and put the bags of cannabis there and he said that the bush showed no sign of anyone trampling the bush where the bags were found.

[16] It was also put to him that it was possible that somebody from the big house had put the bags there and he said that that person would have had to come just beside the little house to do that. He agreed that in the previous week they had searched and found a lot of cannabis in the big house, and that they did search the big house as well on this occasion but found nothing there.

[17] Crown Counsel further asked him and he said in reply that the pack, with the cannabis inside shown in photograph 9 was exactly the same as the 60 packs which were inside the bag which was found in the bush. He also said that the packs of methamphetamine found also used the same new packs as were used for the cannabis found in the bush. He said that they were identical.

[18] It was put by the accused to him that the cannabis found on the bed was lighter in colour than the cannabis found in the bush but he did not agree. He said that they were exactly the same colour. These cannabis bags were inspected and compared in Court. I looked at them myself and saw no difference in colour between them.

[19] He said that fingerprint dusting was carried out on the plastic bags but no print was found.

[20] Sione Punaivaha, 35 year of age, with 10 years in the force, 6 of which he served in the Detector Dog Unit, said that the accused was present when the dog sniffed and found the cannabis pack on the bed in the little house.

[21] He said that they had brought 2 dogs and that he took the first dog back to the vehicle and brought out the second dog and went to the bush area behind the little house for the dog to search there. He said the other officers and the accused all stood and watched while he and the dog went and searched. He said that the dog indicated that there was something at the foot of a saafa bush and he cleared rubbish from it and saw a plastic bag with packs of cannabis and cash in it. He said that he called Malolo Vi and that they all came there and looked at it. He identified the bag in Court. He referred to the photographs and identified the saafa bush and bag as shown in photographs 13 and 14. He said that after the dog found that bag, another officer, Semi Ve’ehala, found another bag of cannabis at another saafa bush.

[22] He said that if any drug was on any person, the dog would know it and would sit beside that person and would follow that person. He said that the dog never indicated that any drug was on any person there.

[23] In cross-examination he was asked why the search was only of the area of the rubbish heap and he said that he did continue to search the rest of the bush area but nothing was found.

[24] I asked him and he said that photograph 17 showed himself lifting the saafa leaves up to show to the accused and the officers the bag of cannabis which Semi Veehala found.

[25] Semi Veehala ,55 years of age with 36 years in the force, 3 years in the Tactical Response Group said that he was the one who found the other bag of cannabis. He said that while the others congregated where the first bag was found, he went and searched in the nearby areas and found the other bag at the foot of a saafa bush about 4 or 5 meters from where the other bag was found. He said he called Malolo Vi and that they all came to where he was, including the accused and the dog.

[26] He said that the first bag, with the money, was found by the rubbish heap.

[27] In cross-examination, he said that the dog was brought to the bag he found and it confirmed that it contained drug and that Malolo Vi brought the accused there too. He said that the search ended after the second bag was found. He said that he only estimated the distance of 4-5 meters of the second bag from the first bag.

[28] I asked and he agreed that the distances were measured as shown in the sketch plan and that those distances were correct. He estimated they searched 60% of the bush area. He said that he did not hide the bag of cannabis there himself and pretended that he found it. He said that the 2 bags were both bulky and would be bulging on any person who had them and that none of the officers had any such bulge.

[29] Sione Paea, 27 years of age with 4 years in the force, said that he was the one who collected and looked after the exhibits found in the search and that he wrote the search list at the time each item was found. He identified each item on the list with each exhibit produced in Court.

[30] He said that at the police station, he and officers, Kava and Tu’itavuki, weighed the drugs still in the plastic packs and bag and recorded them as follow:

(1) 2 packs of methamphetamine (together) 0.72 gm

(2) 1 pack of methamphetamine 0.74 gm

(3) 1 pack of cannabis 0.69 gm

(4) 60 packs of cannabis 44.55 gms

(5) 1 bag of cannabis 222.59 gms

He said the cash was $ 200.

[31] In cross-examination, he said that he was not aware of any law which required that the accused be present when the drugs in respect of which he is charged is being weighed.

Admission of documents and drugs found in the little house

[32] At this stage of this trial, counsel, Mrs Lui, and the accused informed me that they had agreed that the following documents be produced as evidence without the need to call the witnesses to give evidence and to produce them:

(1) The record interview, the charge form and statement of the accused, and

(2) The certificates and reports of analyses of the methamphetamine and of

the cannabis found.

[33] They also informed me that the only thing that the accused disputed was that he had anything to do with the 2 bags of cannabis which were found in the bush area behind the little house.

[34] Tu’amelie Fifita, 24 years of age, police officer, said that he was the one who wrote the diary of action while the search was conducted. He referred to entries no. 37 and 38:

”1342 HRS 37. A/SP Veehala (TRG) finds 01 big zip loc containing cannabis leaves hidden in the bush by the house occupied by Siueli (m) and spouse and there is a clear track from the house into the saafa bushes.

1345 HRS 38. D/Vi asks Seneti (f) Siueli (m) if they know about this zip loc bag of cannabis found and Seneti says that it is hers and Siueli says he does not know about it.

x S Angilau (signed)

x

x M Vi (signed)”

[35] He said that after Seneti said that the bag was hers, the accused then said that it was his instead and that that was why he signed the entry 38 and that the wife did not. He said that he overlooked to write down that the accused said that the bag was his instead.

[36] In cross-examination, he said that the accused did sign the search list as shown in it and that the differences between that signature and his other signatures in the diary of action could have been due to his hands being handcuffed at the time.

[37] He said that the accused’s wife did claim that all the drugs found in the house and in the bush were all hers.

[38] Patelesio Tu’itavuki, 46 years of age, of the forensic division of the force said that he did the photographing at the scene and confirmed the 18 photographs. He said that Ve’ehala and ‘Akau’ola did the measuring and he did the recording and drawing of the sketch plan of the allotment, roads and bush area. He said he marked on the plan the spot where the bag of cannabis and cash was found as no.5, and the spot where the other bag of cannabis was found as no.6. Those were the numbers of those exhibits as written in the search list. The plan also showed the track from the little house.

[39] In cross-examination, he said that he was present when the drugs were weighed and that the accused should have been present when that was done. He said he dusted the bags for fingerprints but that no print was found on them.

[40] I asked and he said that the rubbish heap was about 1 ½ meter from the fence shown in the plan.

Exhibits

[41] It was then agreed between counsel for the Crown and the accused that all the documents referred to and contained in the file produced at the commencement of this trial were formally exhibited as follows:

1. Diary of action (pages 1 to 13)
2. Photographs (pages 14 to 22)
3. Search list (page 23)
4. Search report (pages 24 to 25)
5. Record of interview, charge form and statement (pages 26 to 29)
6. Register of exhibits (page 30)
7. Officer Kava’s analysis and report of the cannabis (pages 31 to 35)
8. Officer Pale’s analysis and report of the methamphetamine (pages 36 to 44)
9. Notice to the accused of both the analyses (pages 45 to 49)
10. Sketch plan (page 49)
11. One envelope containing all the items found in the search.

[42] It was also agreed by the accused that the substances which officers Kava and Pale analysed were the same substances which were found in the search carried out.

Defence evidence

[43] The accused then gave sworn evidence.

[44] Sione Siueli Angilau, 42 years of age of Havelu, road worker, said that he was guilty of possessing the cannabis and methamphetamine which were found in the house. He said that he was led outside and the search was carried out while he was by the house. He said that someone then called from the bush, “There’s something here, bring Siueli”. He said he was then led there and that they were already standing there, and one pointed at something and asked if I knew about it and that he said he did not know. He said that another officer called and that he was led there and that he was asked about it and that he said it was not his. He said that he told Officer Vi that he admitted that the drugs in the house were his but that the drugs in the bush were not his.

[45] In cross-examination, he said that he agreed that the small packs found in the house were identical to the packs in the bag found in the bush but that such packs were quite common and that the ones in the bush were not his.

[46] He said that he agreed that the track from the little house came to the place where the bags were found but that he did not use (or cause) the track.

[47] I asked and he said that he was the only one living in the little house, and that Seneti (wife) only visited him there because she was living with their children at her parent’s place at Havelu, and she only visited after taking the children to school and in the evening. He said that he had only moved to the little house the previous Friday because of argument with his wife. He said he was acquainted with Seiloni Ngaue, who owned the little house, and that she agreed that he live there for no rent.

[48] He said they had no vehicle and that the wife only walked the children to school. He said that the 2 vehicles shown in the sketch plan belonged to other people.

[49] He said that he had been there for a week and his wife brought him his food and that he also got food from Seiloni’s house, the big house.

[50] He said he collected his rubbish in a bag which he said was kept behind the plywood sheet leaning against the wall as shown in photograph 5. He said the child which the wife was carrying as shown in paragraph 5 was born on 18 August 2017 and that she was still in diapers and that the dirty diapers were collected in the rubbish bag and then he would go and dump them in the rubbish heap behind the little house.

[51] He said he had bought the methamphetamines to smoke and that he paid $50 for 1 pack and he was gifted the other 2 packs. He said that he had just bought them in the morning of that day. He said that he just rang a telephone number and someone came over with them. He said that he had nothing to use to smoke the methamphetamine with and that he was going to get it later. As to the pack of cannabis, he said that it was also gifted with the 2 packs of meths and that he was going to smoke them all.

[52] He said at that time he had no job and that he had only been out of prison for 3 or 4 months. He said that the $50 he used to buy the methamphetamine was money which his wife had and with which she was going to pay a loan.

[53] Crown counsel asked him and he said that he had stopped smoking drugs last year. He said that Seiloni felt sorry for him and allowed him to come and live in the little house for free, but that Seiloni was then arrested and her brother demanded and sued him for the electricity and water he used.

[54] The accused then closed his case.

Submissions

[55] I asked Crown counsel to file and serve her submissions first so that the accused would properly reply to them at the hearing and she did that on 18 July 2021 and the hearing was held on 20 July 2021.

Crown submissions

[56] In her submissions, Mrs Lui pointed out that

(a) the 2 bags of cannabis were found hidden very close to the house in which the accused lived;
(b) the condition of the leaves of the saafa bushes at which the bags were hidden were such that they indicated repeated human access to them;
(c) there was a beaten track from the house of the accused to where the bags were hidden;
(d) there was rubbish dumped very close to where the bag with the money was hidden;
(e) the pack in which the cannabis in the house was found and the empty packs found on the bed together with the pack of cannabis were similar to the packs in the bag, Exhibit 5, found by the rubbish in the bush;
(f) because a lot of cannabis had been found in the big house in the previous week, the accused knowing about that, it was natural that he would not want to keep the supply he had in his little house; and
(g) the finding of the 2 bags in the bush by the rubbish dump was consistent with the information provided by the informer to Malolo Vi, that the person selling the drugs went out to the area of the rubbish heap behind the house and came back with drug from there.

[57] I asked counsel if there was any case authority that the information provided by an informer was admissible as evidence and she subsequently provided the sentencing remarks of Whitten LCJ in R v Tangata ‘o Pangi (CR 32/2021).

[58] Counsel submitted that in view of all those factors, there could not be any other possible and reasonable inference but that the accused was in control and possession of the 2 bags of cannabis found in the bush area behind the little house where he lived.

Defence submissions

[59] The accused was very brief in his submissions. He said that he still pleaded guilty to the counts concerning the drugs found in the little house but that he had no knowledge at all of the drugs found in the bush area. He said that there was no strong evidence that he was guilty of them, and consideration should be made that he had no knowledge of them. He said that he had kicked the habit. He asked that the evidence be carefully considered because he disputed the evidence which were not true but admitted the evidence which were true.

Consideration

[60] Having considered the evidence which have been given in this case, I agree with the submissions which Mrs Lui for the Crown has made:

(a) the 2 bags of cannabis were hidden at a place which no one would suspect to look or to go for anything worth taking as was done in the case of R v Pouono (CR27/2019). In that case, the packs of methamphetamine were put in a plastic bag which was then wrapped in a dirty diaper and placed with other dirty and dirtied diapers half way down a rubbish bag left by the backdoor of the house where rubbish bags were usually left. In the present case, no one else lived nearby and no one else except the accused or his wife dumped rubbish there. It was a safe place to hide the drugs. And it was handy because it was close by to the little house where the accused lived. It was convenient for the accused. He did not have to go far to get it or to put the money he received from selling the drugs in the bags hidden there. And it was such that if the police, or anyone else, found the bags, which was unlikely, he would conveniently say that he never knew about them, as he now says in his evidence and in his submissions.
(b) there was a “beaten” track from the little house to the place where the two bags were hidden. That meant that the track was frequently used. And that track only led from the corner of the little house, that is, the far corner of the little house from the side road, such that no member of the public would likely to have entered the allotment and then go around the little house and step over the sheet of corrugated iron of the fence to go along the track, frequently. It is obvious that only the occupants of the allotment could have caused the track to be “beaten”. That was suggested by the accused to Malolo Vi in cross-examination and Malolo Vi said that if any person from the big house had hidden the drugs which were found in the bush, he, the accused would have been sure to have seen such person go past his little house, and the accused said no more about it. To me, it meant and I accept that the accused knew how the track became beaten, namely, because of his frequent walks on it to the two bags of cannabis and the money in one of them.
(c) there was rubbish dumped very close to where the bag with the money was hidden. That is shown in photographs 15, 16 and 17. Some of that rubbish appear to be and I believe that they are diapers. The sketch plan shows that the rubbish heap is much closer to the little house than the spot where the bag with the money was hidden. In fact, Patelesio Tu’itavuki said the distance of the rubbish heap from the fence was only 1 ½ meters and that the distance from the corner of the little house to where the bag with the money was found was 12.1 meters but there were rubbish found dumped where the bag with the money was found. It is clear that the accused had not dumped his bag of rubbish only at the rubbish heap but that he also dumped it right by and very close to where he had hidden the bag with the money, as is shown in photographs 12 and 16. That is consistent with the accused taking the bag of rubbish with him to dump, and not dumping it at the rubbish heap close to the house but at some distance further into the bush, thereby getting to the bag with the money on the pretext of dumping the rubbish further away from the house.
(d) the pack in which the cannabis in the house was found was similar to the empty packs found on the bed and to the 60 packs in which cannabis had already been packed in the bag hidden by the rubbish in the bush. That was the bag which had the cash of $200. Malolo Vi said in his evidence that the packs were identical and I accept his evidence. I believe that the cannabis in the big bag found at the spot marked no.6 on the sketch plan was to be packed into the empty packs found on the bed.

Lawfulness of the search

[61] I now deal with the last point raised by Mrs Lui, namely, that the informer had told Malolo Vi that the person selling the drug at the little house would go to the bush area at the back of the house where the rubbish heap was and would come back with drug from there.

[62] Normally such information is hearsay and is not admissible, and the informer must attend in Court and give that evidence himself or herself. But the Illicit Drugs Control Act has been enacted to overcome that problem by enacting, in S.30, that the name and identity of the informer is not to be revealed except if he or she has given false information to the police. That section provides as follows:

“ 30. Protection of informers and undercover officers

(1) Subject to subsection (3), no witness in any proceedings under this Act shall be obliged –

• (a) to disclose –

(i) the name or address of any informer or undercover police officer, customs officer or authorised officer, who has given information with respect to an offence against this Act; or

(ii) the name and address of any person who has assisted with the enforcement of any provision of this Act;

(iii) any information or statements made by the informer or undercover police officer, customs officer or authorised officer to the witness;

(b) to answer any question if the answer would lead, or would tend to lead, to the discovery of the name, address or identity of such informer or undercover officer or any information under sub-section (1)(a)(iii), where the informer or officer is not a witness in the proceedings; and
(2) If any record which is in evidence or liable to inspection in any proceedings contains an entry in which any such informer or undercover officer is named or described or which might lead to his discovery and includes any information under sub-section (1)(a)(iii), such entry shall be concealed from view or obliterated so far as may be necessary to protect the information or person from discovery.
(3) If in any proceedings before the Court under this Act, the Court, after full enquiry into the case, is satisfied that an informer or undercover officer willfully made any material statement which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true, the Court may permit enquiry and full disclosure concerning the informer or undercover officer.
(4) If in any other proceedings the Court is of the opinion that justice requires disclosure of the name of an informer or another person who assisted in any investigation or proceedings under this Act, the Court may permit enquiry and full disclosure concerning that informer or person.”

[63] Accordingly, an informer can give information to a police officer on which the police officer can rely, if the police officer is satisfied that the information was reasonable. The Court must decide whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the information is true.

[64] In the present case, Malolo Vi received the information from an informer and he acted on it because he considered that it was reasonable and reliable because he had known that informer for sometimes and that informer had given him information in over 10 occasions which turned out to be correct. In this case, he also went and had a look himself and he was satisfied with what he observed as he drove past twice, that the information was correct.

[65] I have no difficulty accepting his evidence and in finding that he had reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under the Act had been committed or was being committed or would be committed and that it was imperative that he acted right away without a search warrant. Any delay would have resulted in the loss of any evidence necessary to prove the offence. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provides as follows:

” 23. Search Warrants

(1) If a Magistrate is satisfied, by information on affidavit in Form 1 in Schedule 4, that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is in or on any place –

• (a) an illicit drug, controlled chemical or controlled equipment;
• (b) any evidence relating to the commission of an offence against this Act; or
• (c) any property derived from an offence under this Act,

the Magistrate or Supreme Court Judge may issue a warrant in Form 2 in Schedule 4 empowering a police officer or a customs officer at any time, or at such time as the Magistrate or Supreme Court Judge may specify in the warrant, to enter the place, search for any illicit drug or thing and if found, seize it and search any person found at or in the place.

(2) A police officer or a customs officer who executes a warrant issued under subsection (1) may –

• (a) enter any place named or described in the warrant;
• (b) search and detain for the purpose of search –

(i) any person found at or in the place;

(ii) any person whom the officer suspects about to enter or leave the place; and

(iii) goods in the apparent control of the person; and

(c) seize –

(i) any illicit drug, controlled chemical or controlled equipment;

(ii) any evidence relating to the commission of an offence against this Act; and

(iii) any property which the officer suspects may have been derived from an offence under this Act.

24. Search and seizure without warrant in emergencies

(1) A police officer may exercise any of the powers in section 23 without a warrant, if the grounds for obtaining a warrant under that section exists and the officer suspects on reasonable grounds, that –

(a) it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of anything connected with an offence under this Act; and

(b) the circumstances are of such seriousness and urgency as to require the immediate exercise of the power without the authority of a warrant.

(2) A police officer may, for the purposes of this section, stop any vehicle or craft where the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that anything connected with an offence under this Act is upon or in the vehicle or craft.

(3) A police officer shall report to a Magistrate any action which he has taken under this section.”

[66] I am therefore satisfied and I find that the search without warrant which was carried out at the accused’s home was lawful.

[67] I note that in that finding, I have accepted the evidence which the informer had given to Malolo Vi and which he has given in evidence in this trial, although it is hearsay evidence, and I have done that because the provisions of S.30 of the Act as I have quoted in paragraph 62 above would have otherwise been rendered meaningless. I must give effect to the provisions of that section by allowing the otherwise hearsay evidence of the informer as admissible evidence in this trial. It is also admissible in sentencing as was done by Whitten LCJ in the Tangata ‘o Pangai case referred to by Mrs Lui.

[68] I therefore find, not only that the search without warrant which was carried out in the present case was lawful, but that the finding of the two bags of cannabis in the bush area behind the little house is consistent with the information provided by the informer. In fact, it proves that the informer was correct in the information he provided to Malolo Vi.

Admissions of the accused and of his wife

[69] I also consider that the wife of the accused would not have admitted that the drugs found in the bush were hers if she had not known about them herself. There was no reason for her to have done so if she had not known there were the 2 bags of drugs hidden in the bush behind the little house, except to take the blame for it herself.

[70] Finally, I believe the accused when he said that he had kicked the habit, which I take to mean that he no longer smokes methamphetamine or cannabis. That is supported by, and proved by, the fact that no equipment was found in the little house for use in smoking methamphetamine, and no cigarette paper was found for use in smoking cannabis.

[71] There was therefore no reason for the 3 packs of meth and the 1 pack of cannabis to be found in his house at all and I do not believe him when he said that he had bought 1 pack of methamphetamine and got 2 packs of methamphetamine and 1 pack of cannabis for free to smoke only that morning. I believe he had bought the methamphetamines, or he had received them, for sale, as he did with the cannabis.

Verdict

[72] I am therefore satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused knowingly possessed the methamphetamine and the cannabis with which he is charged in each of the 4 counts of his indictment without any lawful excuse, and I find him guilty of all of them and convict him accordingly.

Niu J

Nuku’alofa: 3 August 2021 J U D G E