Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Samoa |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU
BETWEEN:
THE POLICE
Informant
AND:
VAIATI SOLIA aka
VAIAKI SOIA, male of Leone.
Defendant
Counsels: Mr G. Patu for the prosecution
Ms. T. Toailoa for the defendant
Sentence: 28 June 2010
SENTENCE OF NELSON J.
The defendant has pleaded guilty to possession of 1.1 grams of dried marijuana leaves found under his chair in a taxi that was stopped and searched by the police. Normally given the quantity the court would consider exercising some degree of leniency on a guilty plea from a first offender. The problem here Vaiati is you well know you are not a first offender. Defendant has a long history of previous convictions some of which are for drug offending for which he received prison terms. So this defendant therefore is a seasoned offender who has committed the same sort of offence before.
The prosecution can rightly say that he is beyond redemption and displays a complete disregard for the laws. And in saying that the prosecution have submitted that the appropriate penalty from the court is to send you back to prison.
But in her plea in mitigation your counsel has made a novel but interesting submission. She argues that the defendants record shows deterrence does not work and the court should consider other options. She points out that her client is now working as a fisherman earning about $150 a week and the court should consider perhaps a rehabilitative sentence.
The problem with this argument is firstly, contrary to what counsel has advanced the defendants previous conviction record shows that his last drug offence was not in 2002 but was drug offence number 21 for which he was sentenced to 6 months and which appears to have been in 2008. The second problem is that notwithstanding the relatively small quantity of marijuana found on the defendant, this court has said and will say again that if you are a repeat drug offender you will normally go to jail irrespective of the quantity involved. And that is because this sort of offending is very prevalent and the public interest requires deterrent sentences to continue to be imposed. But I concede that deterrence sentences work on some people but not on others. The defendant seems to be in the others category.
So I think Vaiati what all this means is an imprisonment sentence should be imposed for your case but I note that you have already been in custody for about six weeks, two weeks on original remand and four weeks after you failed to turn up for your court case last month. And I remain intrigued by defence counsels argument. So I have decided to do the following - I am going to put the defendant to the test to see if there is any real possibility of reform. I am going to test your theory Ms Toailoa and see what happens. I hope we do not all regret it at the end of the day.
The defendant is going to be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence for a period of 2 years on the following conditions:
O lona uiga Vaiati mo le 2 tausaga lea o lea o le a e i lalo o le vaavaaiga a le tulafono. A e tama lelei e le toe molia mai oe i se mataupu i totonu o le 2 tausaga lea ma totogi lau sala tupe lea na faamalau atu e $150, o le iuga lava lena o le mataupu. Ae a toe aumai oe i seisi mea i totonu ole 2 tausaga lea, o le a toe laga loa le faila lea ma o lena ua e iloa le iuga e tu'uina atu ia oe. E tatau ona e saini i le Ofisa o Faanofovaavaaia i Aso Faraile ma o isi tu'utu'uga o le fa'aiuga lea o le a fa'amalamalama atu e le alii ofisa lea e alaala mai, ia e usitai iai.
Vaiati if I were you, I would use this opportunity wisely something you failed to do this far in your life. Use this avanoa wisely because if you come back you will not get another opportunity like it.
JUSTICE NELSON
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2010/115.html