Police v Faaofo [2009] WSSC 55 (8 May 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

SIAOSI FAAOFO
male of Aleisa.
Accused

Counsels: Ms L. Taimalelagi for the prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 8 May 2009

SENTENCE

Siaosi no doubt you have heard from the previous sentencing the courts approach to sentencing in marijuana cases involving those who deal in or sell the drug. You are fortunate that there is no direct evidence here before me as to why you had enough marijuana to make up 34 cigarettes in your possession. I tend to think you may have been in the business of selling or "tulei" of the drug as it is commonly called but I am not sure. I will therefore give you the benefit of the doubt and will not sentence you on the basis that you were dealing in the drug for commercial purposes or gain.

I note that you have already been punished to some extent because you have lost your status as a "pou" offender. You are now back with the general population at Tafaigata. You have also pleaded guilty and saved the courts time and you are a first offender on this kind of offence. For this matter I will give you a light sentence of imprisonment but if you do it again you will find the sentence will not be light.

For this matter you will be convicted and sentenced to three (3) months imprisonment cumulative to your present term.

Before I complete this sentencing I wish to say something about this police practice called "pou". This is a practice that has long been in existence but has been and is again to be soundly condemned. When a court sentences a defendant to imprisonment it means imprisonment in a prison not imprisonment in the house of a Superintendent or other police officer or in the house of any other person.

As far as I can discern there is no provision or statutory authority in the Prisons Act or elsewhere that sanctions such a practice. There is only provision for prisoners to be released for work purposes but that is a quite different situation from what appears to be the situation in the instant case and in relation to this practice of "pou" generally.

If the Attorney Generals Office are able to provide the court with the relevant statutory authority that authorizes such a practice I would be happy to reconsider the matter but if not then these comments are directed to be referred to the Commissioner of Police. The hazardous part about such a practice is of course the very thing before the court today where offenders reoffend while they are assigned to such a post. I can advise counsel from the bench that in my experience sitting up here and as a private practitioner in this country that happens very often. I leave those matters in your capable hands Ms Taimalelagi.

JUSTICE NELSON