Police v Matavale [2013] WSSC 77 (25 September 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Matavale [2013] WSSC 77

Case name: Police v Faaoso Matavale

Citation: [2013] WSSC 77

Decision date: 25 September 2013

Parties:
POLICE (Prosecution) and FAAOSO MATAVALE female of Laulii, Patamea and Faleula

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1599/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge: CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Su’a for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Narcotics Act 1967

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S1599/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

FAAOSO MATAVALE female of Laulii, Patamea and Faleula.

Accused

Counsel: L Su’a for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 25 September 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on the charge of possession of narcotics, namely, marijuana, pursuant to s.7 of the Narcotics Act 1967. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment in terms of s.18 of the Act. To the charge the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. On Saturday 10 August 2013, a police officer who was driving back to Tafaigata prison saw three women at the entrance gate of the prison compound. One of these women was the

accused who was trying to squeeze through the gate. The police officer stopped the vehicle and told the woman to hop inside the vehicle. They were then taken inside the compound where they were interviewed by the police officer. The two women who were with the accused told the police officer that they come to visit the accused’s husband who was serving time as a prisoner and that the accused had suggested that they enter the prison compound by climbing through the gate. A female police officer then body searched the three women. When she was about to search the accused the latter refused and tried to stop the search from being carried out. The accused then handed the police officer one marijuana joint. The police officer continued to search the accused and found another seven joints in the accused’s pockets.

3. In the pre-sentence report prepared on the accused by the probation service, she says that her de-facto husband who is a prisoner had instructed her to pick up a parcel from a specified place in town and also gave her directions as to where to drop and hide the parcel in the prison compound. The accused carried out her husband’s instructions knowing fully that the parcel was of marijuana substances.

The accused

4. The accused is 22 years old. She and her defacto husband have two children. She is currently unemployed but stays home and look after her sick mother. She is a first offender and was of reasonably good character prior to the commission of this offence. She has also pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity.

The aggravating and mitigating features

5. The most serious aggravating feature of this offending is the unlawful attempt by the accused to enter the prison compound by climbing through the entrance gate to put the marijuana joints she had at a spot within the prison compound pointed out by her husband who is a prisoner. That must be the spot where her husband would pick up the parcel. She also refused to cooperate when a female police officer tried to search her. The number of marijuana joints she had is also a relevant aggravating feature of this offending. So is the fact that this was a premeditated and pre-planned operation. There is no mitigating feature of the offending.

The decision

6. Having regard to the aggravating features of the offending, the mitigating features personal to the accused, and the need for deterrence in this type of case, I will take 6 months as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct 1 ½ months for the accused’s previous good character. That leaves 4 ½ months. I will deduct another 1½ months for the accused’s early plea of guilty. That leaves 3 months.
7. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. The time during which the accused has been remanded in custody since 11 August 2013 is to be further deducted from that sentence.
   

CHIEF JUSTICE