Police v Tauese [2015] WSSC 25 (24 March 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tauese [2015] WSSC 25

Case name:	Police v Tauese
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 25
Decision date:	24 March 2015
Parties:	POLICE (prosecution) v LEMISIO TAUESE (accused) male of Faleula-uta.
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S346/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. - Time he has already spent in custody is further deducted from that sentence
Representation:	R Titi for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Possession of narcotics – maximum penalty – aggravating features relating to the offending - early guilty plea – sentence – term of imprisonment
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967 s.7, s.18
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S346/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

LEMISIO TAUESE male of Faleula-uta.
Accused

Counsel:
R Titi for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 24 March 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charge

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

The offending

2. As it appears from the prosecution’s summary of facts agreed to by the accused, on 17 January 2015 at around 9:00am, the accused was seen by people selling marijuana at Faleula-uta. The police received a phone call from an informer about what the accused was doing and they went to Faleula-uta. The police stopped at a shop at Faleula-uta and as soon as the accused saw the police he ran off into a coconut plantation holding a bag. The police chased after him and when he was caught he was no longer holding a bag. When the police asked him about the bag he was holding, he denied that he was carrying a bag. The police searched around the area where the accused had ran and found the bag. When the police opened the bag, it contained fifteen dried marijuana branches, six marijuana joints wrapped in pieces of white paper, and loose dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper. The fifteen marijuana branches weighed 6.7 grams and estimated to yield ten joints and the loose dried marijuana weighed 345 grams and estimated to yield forty nine joints – a total of sixty five joints including the six joints that were also found in the accused’s bag.

The accused

3. As shown from the pre-sentence report, the accused is single. He finished school at Year 13 in 2012 when he was suspended from school for smoking in the school compound. He then stayed at home. Later he found a job with the Women in Business organisation but that lasted for eight months. He now does not have a regular job but sometimes assists a man who is a builder from which he gets some money. His father passed away in 2012 and his family depends for their living on their plantation and the wages of the accused’s brother in law.
4. The accused admitted to the probation service that he has been smoking marijuana for two years because it makes him feel happy. In 2012 he was convicted of theft and placed under supervision for 9 months and ordered to perform sixty hours of community service. His term of supervision ended in April 2013. He is now appearing again before the Court.
5. When the present charge was first called at the mention on 3 February 2015, the accused entered a guilty plea.

Discussion

6. The prevalence of marijuana related offending has been a problem that the Courts has had to deal with for many years now. Custodial sentences have been imposed unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify a non-custodial sentence. Recently, the legislature increased the maximum penalty for marijuana related offences to try and curb the growth of this type of offending. Initially, there was an apparent reduction in the incidence of marijuana offending. However, it is getting back to where it used to be.
7. The situation of this accused looks unstable. In 2012, he was suspended from school for smoking in the school compound. He did not return to school. In the same year, he was convicted of theft and was placed under supervision for 9 months. That ended in April 2013. He is now back before the Court again and he admitted to the probation service that he has been smoking marijuana for 2 years. The accused also does not have a regular job. He now spends most his time staying at home.
8. There are two aggravating features of this offending. The first is the fact that the accused was in possession of marijuana for the purpose of selling them to earn money. He was selling marijuana when the police arrived and found him. He ran away holding a bag and when the police gave chase and caught him, he lied to the police that he was not holding a bag. The bag, however, was found by the police and it contained the marijuana substances with which the accused is charged. The second aggravating feature of this offending is the quantity of marijuana substances that was in the accused’s possession. This is a significant factor for determining the type of sentence to be imposed.
9. I have given careful consideration to the circumstances of this case including the personal circumstances of the accused and his relatively young age and have arrived at the conclusion that a custodial sentence is justified. Having regard to the need for deterrence in this type of offending and the aggravating features relating to the offending, I will take 2½ years as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct 1/3 for the early guilty plea. That leaves 1 year and 9 months. I will show mercy on the accused because of his relatively young age and deduct a further 3 months. That leaves 18 months.

Result

10. The accused is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The time he has already spent in custody is to be further deducted from that sentence.
    

Honourable Chief Justice