Police v Siaosi [2007] WSSC 98 (20 February 2007)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

SEMEATU SIAOSI,
male of Faleatiu and Salua Manono
Defendant

Counsels: Mr K. Koria for prosecution
TK. Enari for defendant

Hearing: 25th & 26th January 2007
Sentence: 20th February 2007

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NELSON, J

The defendant appears for sentence on a charge of possession of cannabis substances namely, one handbag full of dried marijuana. The maximum penalty at law for the offence of possession of marijuana is seven years imprisonment.

It is no secret that there is a current sentencing policy of this court in relation to the offence of possession of narcotics in particular possession of marijuana. That sentencing policy is to impose penalties of imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances requiring a different treatment. What amounts to exceptional circumstances will no doubt have to be evolved by the court on a case by case basis as every case is different. But the message that must be sent out to the youths and to the people of this country is that if you involve yourself in drug offending, whether in relation to marijuana or any other narcotic, you will receive an imprisonment term as a general rule and the only question for the sentencing judge is how long is appropriate.

Turning now to your case Semeatu, I note and accept that this is an unusual case with some unusual circumstances. Firstly, it is difficult to gauge a starting point for an appropriate sentence because there is little police evidence before me as to the quantity of marijuana found on you. I have perused the notes of evidence carefully and note that the evidence refers to a plastic bag containing marijuana but does not refer to how large the plastic bag is or how large a quantity of marijuana was found inside it. Plastic bags in this country range from the size of small coin bags up to large shopping bags. I do not know what sort of bag is involved in this particular case because the evidence is unclear.

But in my view that is a very important feature that any drug prosecution should and must address. I can only draw the reasonable inference that it must be assumed it was not an excessively large quantity of marijuana because if it was, the police probably would have pointed that out to the court as part of their case. That is the first unusual factor of your case.

The second unusual factor is what your counsel has referred to namely, the length of time you have been in custody awaiting a hearing of this matter. The court file shows that you were originally scheduled to appear for trial on this charge on the 16th March 2006. You failed to appear and a warrant was issued for your arrest. That warrant was executed on the 22nd May 2006 and from that time you have been in police custody. You have therefore been in custody for a period of approximately nine (9) months.

The reasons for this again from the court file appears to be initially because you failed to appear for your court case on this charge of possession and subsequently it was because other more serious charges were pending against you. In my view these are proper and legitimate reasons for a defendant to be remanded in custody to await trial. By itself these do not in my respectful opinion amount to a reason to depart from the courts stated sentencing policy to be applied in drug cases. And the reason is because narcotics are becoming a scourge of this country and is the source of much violence and crime and corruption of our youth. There is a clear and undoubted need to address what is a growing cancer in our society.

However Semeatu, while the length of your remand in custody is not a reason to depart from the policies set by this court of an imprisonment penalty, I accept it is a most relevant consideration for the court to take into account for penalty. And I do give it great weight and importance in this case together with the fact that the defendant is to be treated as a first offender because his conviction in 1999 was for an offence of a different nature and type. I also note the character references provided in relation to the defendant in the probation office pre-sentence report as well as the other matters in that report.

Considering all the circumstances of this matter, in particular the need for the court to remain undeterred in applying its sentencing policy for cases of this nature, the penalty for you Semeatu is as follows: The defendant will be convicted and sentenced to one (1) month imprisonment, that month to run from the date of his conviction namely the 26th day of January 2007. The record should also reflect the courts advice to you of the danger of re-offending and likelihood of a more severe penalty for same.

SUPREME COURT JUDGE