Police v Mateai [2013] WSSC 86 (15 October 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Mateai [2013] WSSC 86

Case name: Police v Mateai

Citation: [2013] WSSC 86

Decision date: 15 October 2013

Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) v METOTISI MATEAI aka JUNIOR MATEAI (accused) male of Salelologa.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1826/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
F E Niumata and O Tagaloa for prosecution

Catchwords:
Sentence, possession of narcotics, maximum penalty, hefty penalty, aggravating and mitigating features

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Narcotics Act 1967 s.7

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S1826/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

METOTISI MATEAI aka JUNIOR MATEAI male of Salelologa.

Accused

Counsel: F E Niumata and O Tagaloa for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 15 October 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of possession of narcotics pursuant to s.7 of the Narcotics Act 1967 which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment under s.18 of the Act. To the charge the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. The accused was travelling on a bus at Savaii on Thursday 22 August 2013. He took out a marijuana joint from a silver case in his pocket. Another passenger in the bus saw the marijuana joint and called the police on his mobile phone. When the bus arrived at Saleologa it was stopped by the police who entered the bus and searched the accused. The police found on the accused two small plastic packets of dried marijuana leaves equivalent to 6½ joints, nine marijuana joints, and $62.20 in cash. The accused was then taken to the Tuasivi police station where he was cautioned and interviewed. He was then remanded in custody. Up to now he is still in custody.

The accused

3. The accused is 23 years old. He is from the village of Papaloa, Salelologa. He is single and unemployed. His mother is a mute and he has never seen his father all his life. He and his two siblings have been raised and taken care of by their maternal grandparents. He left school at year 11 and helped out with his family’s plantation.
4. The accused is also a first offender. He admitted to the probation service that he has been a regular consumer of marijuana since 2008. So he had not been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. But he did apologise on his knees to the Court and said this would be his first and last time to appear before the Court.
5. The accused has also been fined by his village council. The pulenu’u of the accused’s village had confirmed to the probation service that this fine has been paid. The fine consisted of $2,000 and two large pigs valued at about $1,000 each. So the total fine was about $4,000 which is quite a hefty penalty.
6. The accused has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.

The aggravating and mitigating features

7. The only aggravating feature in relation to the offending is the quantity of marijuana substances found on the accused. There is no mitigating feature of the offending. In relation to the accused, there is no aggravating feature personal to him as offender. But there are mitigating features. These are his expression of remorsefulness to the Court, the hefty penalty that he and his family have already paid to the village council, and his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Discussion

8. Having regard to the aggravating feature of this offending and the need for deterrence which arises primarily from the prevalence of this type of offending, I will set the starting point for sentence at 6 months imprisonment. I will then make deductions for the mitigating features personal to the accused especially the very hefty penalty paid to the village council and the early guilty plea. That leaves one month and three weeks and one day.
9. The accused is sentenced to one month 3 weeks and one day imprisonment. The accused has already spent that time in custody.

The result

10. The accused is sentenced to one month three weeks and one day imprisonment. As the accused has already spent that time in custody, he is now to be released from custody forthwith.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor

Attorney General’s Office, Apia, for prosecution