Public Prosecutor v Tabi [2024] VUSC 365; Criminal Case 3394 of 2024 (6 December 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF	Criminal
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU	Case No. 24/3394 SC/CRML
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

v

CHARLEY TABI

Date of Plea: 2 December 2024

Date of Sentence: 6 December 2024

Before: Justice M A MacKenzie

In Attendance: Public Prosecutor – Ms J Tete

Defendant – Ms B Taleo

SENTENCE

1. Mr Charley Tabi, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of cannabis. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding VT 100 million or both.
   

The Facts

2. On 1 October 2024, you went into Marin Store in Santo, and you were intoxicated. Due to concerns about your behaviour, police were called. You were searched and a substance was found covered in foil. Testing confirmed the substance was cannabis, with a net weight of 1.924 g.
   
3. You were cautioned and admitted the allegations to police.
   

Sentencing purposes/principles

4. The sentence I impose must hold you accountable and must denounce and deter your conduct given that you were in possession of cannabis. The sentence should ensure you take responsibility for your actions and help you to rehabilitate. It must also be generally consistent.
   

Approach to sentence

5. Sentencing involves 2 separate steps; Jimmy Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40, which applied Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.
   

Starting point

6. The first step is to set a starting point taking into account the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending itself and the maximum penalty for the offence.
   
7. The offending involved a very small quantity of cannabis.
   
8. There are no mitigating features of the offending itself.
   
9. There is a guideline case for cannabis cultivation, Wetul v Public Prosecutor [2013] VUCA 26. It also applies to possession of cannabis. Here, the offending involves a very small amount of cannabis for personal use. There is no evidence of commerciality at all. Therefore, it falls withing Category 1 of Wetul. So, the usual sentencing outcome would be a fine or other community-based sentence. A short term of imprisonment could be warranted in some circumstances.
   
10. If a term of imprisonment was appropriate the starting point would be no more than 6 months imprisonment. See for example, Public Prosecutor v Shem [2022] VUSC 174 and Public Prosecutor v Thuha [2017] VUSC 53.
    

Guilty plea and personal factors

11. While you pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, I agree that the discount should be limited to 25%. That is because the case against you is overwhelming. That is 1 ½ months.
    
12. You are aged 25 years, and you are from Pentecost. You currently live on Santo with your partner. You are a first offender and were co-operative with police. You are remorseful and make a living from planting and selling kava. The sentence is reduced by 1 month for these factors.
    
13. You were remanded in custody between 1 – 24 October 2024, a period of 3 weeks and 2 days. That equates to an effective sentence of approximately 6 weeks imprisonment. The sentence is reduced by 6 weeks for that factor.
    

End Sentence

14. The provisional end sentence is 2 months imprisonment. However, I agree with both counsel that a community-based sentence can be imposed, given the small quantity of cannabis and that you are a first offender. A suspended prison sentence is not required to meet the need for deterrence, denunciation and accountability. All the relevant sentencing needs, including rehabilitation can be met by a combined sentence of 6 months supervision and 60 hours community work. The supervision sentence is subject to a condition that that you are to attend a drug awareness and rehabilitation programme as directed by the Corrections Department.
    
15. The cannabis material is to be destroyed.
    
16. You have 14 days to appeal.
    

DATED at Port Vila this 6th day of December 2024
BY THE COURT

.................................................
Justice M A MacKenzie