Police v Sape [2015] WSSC 155 (2 July 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sape [2015] WSSC 155

Case name:	Police v Sape
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 155
Decision date:	02 July 2015
Parties:	The Police (Prosecution) Ma’ia’i Tamamasui Misa Sape, male of Matautu and Vaovai Falealili (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	02 July 2015
File number(s):	S1695/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	Prosecution have proven the charge of possession of three cigarettes against you to the courts satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. On information S1695/15 you will be remanded in custody on that charge and the other charges you have pleaded guilty to, to the 20th of July for sentence. I am also ordering probation reports in respect of the other charges.
Representation:	O Tagaloa and F Lagaaia for prosecution Defendant 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:

MA’IA’I TAMAMASUI MISA SAPE, male of Matautu and Vaovai Falealili.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa and F Lagaaia for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Hearing: 02 July 2015

Decision: 02 July 2015

ORAL DECISION OF NELSON J

1. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to a charge of possession of three marijuana cigarettes wrapped in silver foil. The charge is that he knowingly had possession of the cigarettes so it must be established to the required standard of the criminal law the defendant knew the cigarettes were on his person or in his possession. The defendant does not seem to dispute the fact that the cigarettes were made of leaves from the cannabis sativa plant commonly known as marijuana a prohibited narcotic under the Narcotics Act 1967. What he is disputing is that he had no knowledge the cigarettes were in his purse.
2. The evidence establishes that the cigarettes were discovered in the defendants purse on his return to Tafaigata Prison on the 25^th day of May 2015 when he returned from a calling of a case involving charges against him. At the time he was remanded in custody pending finalization of said charges. Evidence of the searching prison officer is the cigarettes were discovered in a zipped compartment in the purse carried by the defendant. The purse holds the defendants cosmetics and other personal items but he said he never uses the zipped compartment where the cigarettes were discovered.
3. His evidence was he has no idea how the cigarettes came to be in that compartment. He said his purse is kept at night in the custody of the secretary of their prison cell Mr Une Malū for security purposes and that it is only returned to his possession in the daylight hours. He thinks the cigarettes were put into his purse by Une. But he did not offer an explanation as to why Une would store his drugs in a purse belonging to someone else and kept by that someone else throughout the course of the day.
4. There would be for example nothing to stop the defendant from smoking the cigarettes during the day or even selling them. There was no evidence by the defendant that there was any special relationship between himself and Une. Or why Une would allow him to leave the prison for his court date in the outside world carrying his drugs. And on a trip where the probability of the defendant being caught with the drugs would be extremely high.
5. Defendant also said that when he left prison that morning to come to court his purse was not searched by the Prison Authority. I find it difficult to accept that the police and the Prison Authority would allow a defendant to leave prison and walk around all day in the court building without searching a purse being carried by a prisoner remanded in custody.
6. The evidence of Tevita, a cellmate of the defendant is that prisoners always sleep with their own personal possessions. Such is not kept by the cell supervisor. He also said the defendant takes his purse everywhere even to the shower.
7. The evidence of the searching police prison officer is that when the cigarettes were discovered the defendant accepted they were marijuana cigarettes. There is no evidence that upon discovery the defendant complained the drugs were not his or expresses surprise to find them in his purse.
8. The defendants evidence is simply not credible in many respects and should not be accepted. The more plausible explanation which fits all the facts is the defendant acquired or purchased the cigarettes during his visit to the court for his remand. And he was trying to smuggle them back into prison. The defendants own evidence was he was in a cell where marijuana was freely and openly traded.
9. The evidence also shows a number of people on drug charge remands were held in the defendants cell. It is not for me to tell the Prison Authorities how to run their prison. But in my experience it is a dangerous practice to house narcotics offenders together in the same cell. Because we can be rest assured they do not sit around all day and discuss the debt crisis in Greece. Some of Samoas best burglars freely admit they learnt their trade at Tafaigata. When they were put in the same cell asexperienced burglars. This is why in the old days we referred to Tafaigata as “the University”.
10. Prosecution have proven the charge of possession of three cigarettes against you to the courts satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. On information S1695/15 you will be remanded in custody on that charge and the other charges you have pleaded guilty to, to the 20^th of July for sentence. I am also ordering probation reports in respect of the other charges.
    

JUSTICE NELSON