Police v Mauga [2015] WSSC 136 (18 February 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Mauga [2015] WSSC 136

Case name:	Police v Mauga
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 136
Decision date:	18 February 2015
Parties:	The Police (Prosecution) Sevia Mauga, male of Nofoalii and Saina. (First Defendant) Sofara Amuamu, male of Leauvaa. (Second Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	18 February 2015
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Courthouse, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	I am satisfied this evidence establishes the pouch was found in the possession of both defendants and the pouch contained narcotics as well as the round of ammunition. Accordingly all charges that the defendants pleaded not guilty to are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both defendants will be remanded in custody to the 02nd of March 2015 for pre-sentence report and sentence.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution Defendants unrepresented
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SEVIA MAUGA, male of Nofoalii and Saiga.
First Defendant

AND:

SOFARA AMUAMU, male of Leauvaa.
Second Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
Defendants unrepresented

Hearing: 18 February 2015

Decision: 18 February 2015

DECISION OF NELSON J

1. The defendants face charges of possession of marijuana and possession of one live round of .308 ammunition. The first defendant Sevia Mauga has pleaded not guilty to all charges. And when asked again this morning maintained his not guilty plea. His co-defendant Sofara Amuamu pleaded guilty to the possession of narcotics but not guilty to possession of the ammunition.
2. The police evidence establishes that between 11:00 and 12:00 mid-night on the evening of 29 November 2014 the defendants were in a vehicle described as a private taxi a sedan. The vehicle pulled into a petrol pump at Fasitoo-uta. A nearby police patrol noticed the vehicle and suspected the defendants were intoxicated. The in-charge of the patrol sent two of his constables to check the vehicle and its occupants.
3. Constables Malu Fagalele and Fealuai Mamea approached the vehicle. They saw the defendant Sevia pushing the car to the rear part of the petrol station. His co-defendant Sofara was inside the vehicle in the passengers seat. Constable Malu went out to Sevia and questioned him as to whether they had been drinking. Sevia denied they were intoxicated. But the constable noticed the strong smell of alcohol and Sevias eyes were red.
4. He shone his torch into the vehicle and saw empty beer bottles in the back. It also showed a pouch on the floor of the back seat. Constable Fealuai went around the other side of the vehicle and retrieved the pouch. By this time the co-defendant Sofara had exited the vehicle. The pouch was opened and inside was the narcotics and the one round of ammunition. Constable Malu said he questioned Sevia about the pouch and he told him it belonged to Sofara. Sofara denied the bag was his. But Sofara has since pleaded guilty to possession of the marijuana. The only issue in relation to the narcotics charges then is whether Sevia is party to this possession.
5. The further evidence from constable Felauai was that when Constable Malu went to report the matter to the in-charge of the patrol he remained by the vehicle with the two defendants. He said Sevia was standing beside him on his right. The Constable was holding the pouch and had his hands behind his back. He said that Felauai tried to take the bag off him but was unsuccessful. Sevia then ran away and the officers gave chase. Police were able to apprehend him and Constable Felauai asked Sevia why did he try to take the bag. Sevia did not respond to the question.
6. It is clear from his evidence that Sevia was the driver and probably the owner of the vehicle. He was pushing it to the rear of the petrol station when the police arrived. He certainly never told the police that it belonged to someone else. It is also clear the pouch containing the narcotics and the ammunition was found in his vehicle. Furthermore the evidence establishes that he tried to take the pouch off the police officer and that he ran away from police. These are not the actions of someone who is innocent.
7. I am satisfied this evidence establishes the pouch was found in the possession of both defendants and the pouch contained narcotics as well as the round of ammunition. Accordingly all charges that the defendants pleaded not guilty to are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both defendants will be remanded in custody to the 02^nd of March 2015 for pre-sentence report and sentence.
   

JUSTICE NELSON