Police v Ioane [2008] WSSC 78 (4 August 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

IOANE @ JOHN SEFO,
male of Vaimoso.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms R. Titi for the prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 4th August 2008

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NELSON J.

The defendant appears for sentence on a charge of possession of 17 small packets of marijuana leaves. The packets were described by the witnesses who gave evidence as small plastic coin size bags and obviously the marijuana had been pre-packaged for the purposes of distribution and/or sale. Despite the defendants denial of possession the court in its decision dated 27th June 2008 found him guilty after hearing the testimony of the arresting police officers. Possession occurred on the 22nd January 2008 at the Fugalei market which seems to be the main distributing centre for marijuana in our community. The arrest was made by police officers on duty at the Fugalei police post and in view of the increasing number of cases coming from the Fugalei Market perhaps the time has come for more than one police post to be set up on those premises.

The defendant is a 34 year old male of Vaimoso married to a woman from Salua, Manono. The couple have two young children. These and his other personal details and background are contained in the pre-sentence report from the probation office. It states that the defendant works at his wifes family plantation at Manono supporting his family and no doubt rendering tautua to the wifes family and his village of residence.

The defendant has today expressed remorse for what he did and has asked the Court to be lenient for the sake of his wife and his family. The answer to that is the defendant should have thought of those people before he got involved in such serious offending. It is difficult Ioane to accept your expression of remorse because you have appeared before the Courts in 2001 and 2004 on this very same offence, possession of marijuana. By his own hand this defendant has harvested a sentence of imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years and I am sure the defendant well knows the courts policy of imprisonment for drug offending because of the prevalence of marijuana offending and the need to deter him and other potential offenders. He knows these things because he is no stranger to the courts and to this offence. I feel sorry for his wife and his family but the court must do what the law requires it to do. The only question for me is what is an appropriate period of imprisonment given all the circumstances.

The aggravating factors of this offence are adequately listed in the prosecution sentencing memorandum. The quantity is large there were 17 plastic packets of marijuana, obviously ready for sale or distribution. The impact on the community of marijuana offending is great and although no particular studies have been done in this area general drug offending has a debilitative effect on any community. Marijuana offending is also a breeding ground for organized crime and drug trafficking and leads to involvement in more sinister drugs such as ice, cocaine, methampethamine or "P" as it is more commonly known. The attitude of the village councils of our country is also clear because offenders in this type of offending are normally banished by village councils that being the ultimate penalty that they can impose. I also note that on both occasions the defendant appeared on possession of marijuana he received imprisonment terms. The last aggravating factor is commercial use and of all the factors this in my view is the most serious. There is a difference between the casual smoker of marijuana for recreational purposes and the man who grows and sells this illegal substance for profit. If we are to stamp out this problem in our community the dealers and distributors should be targeted by law enforcement and the court should be merciless in its treatment of them. That is the duty of the Court. Dealers and distributors beware.

Because of this factor and bearing in mind there is little by way of mitigation in the defendants favour, the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment.

JUSTICE NELSON