Police v Misa [2016] WSSC 158 (13 April 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Misa [2016] WSSC 158

Case name:	Police v Misa
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 158
Decision date:	13 April 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) SUITUPE MISA male of Malie. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S3445/14, S3443/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	In respect of both these informations Suitupe you will be convicted and ordered to pay the following sums: firstly a fine of $750; secondly prosecution costs of $500, Probation Office costs of $200; that total sum of $1,450.00 is payable by 12:00 noon tomorrow 14 of April 2016, in default of payment you will serve 6 months in prison.
Representation:	F Ioane for prosecution T Ponifasio for defendant.
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SUITUPE MISA male of Malie.
Defendant

Counsel: F Ioane for prosecution
T Ponifasio for defendant.

Sentence: 13 April 2016

SENTENCE

1. After a defended hearing the defendant was found guilty on two charges. Firstly information S3445/14 that he was found to be in possession of dried marijuana leaves on the 04^th of July 2014 when the police raided the plantation property belonging to him and his wife at Malie. Evidence at trial indicated these leaves weighed 23.9 grams. Defendant was also found guilty on information S3443/14 alleging that at Malie on the day of the police raid 04 July 2014 he was also found in possession of one hundred and seventeen (117) marijuana seeds wrapped in a piece of paper.
2. The evidence indicated beyond doubt the narcotics were found hidden between bricks underneath the defendants makeshift bed. It was on that basis legal possession was found to be established. For the purposes of that exercise it was irrelevant who owned the narcotics. But for the purposes of sentencing which is the present task to be undertaken it is relevant to determine whether the narcotics were for the defendants own personal use or whether as he claimed in his cautioned statement to the police they belonged to his workers. The defendant in his statement said he was keeping the drugs in order to establish which of his workers they belonged to. The trial evidence showed the workers were not working on the day of the police raid.
3. Trial evidence also showed the hurried departure the previous day of at least one of the defendants workers. And that there was also discovered by the police behind the workers faleo’o quarters two paelos containing some marijuana plants. The trial evidence did not establish who cultivated the plants or whom the paelos belonged to, hence the charges in relation to them were dismissed by the court. It was also not clear whether the departure of this particular worker was due to the defendants discovery of the narcotics or whether it occurred before such discovery was made. Probably the former but there are indicators both ways.
4. For sentencing purposes I will accept and give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. And accept that Suitupe discovered the narcotics in the workers quarters and held on to them for the purpose of investigating as to whom they belonged. In other words I will accept what Suitupe told the police in his cautioned statement made the day of the police raid was in fact the truth.
5. It was of course a mistake for you to hang on to these narcotics. You should have immediately reported your suspicions and the matter to the police and let them do the investigation not you. Had you done that you probably would not have been prosecuted. However you did not follow that course of action.
6. I take into account the circumstances of this matter and I agree with your counsel that given those facts a custodial sentence is not appropriate. I will deal with this by way of a monetary penalty which your counsel has indicated you can meet. In setting the penalty I take into consideration the circumstances of your case and also your first offender status for narcotics offending. Plus the fact of your banishment from the village which has now been confirmed by the probation office.
7. In respect of both these informations Suitupe you will be convicted and ordered to pay the following sums: firstly a fine of $750; secondly prosecution costs of $500, Probation Office costs of $200; that total sum of $1,450.00 is payable by 12:00 noon tomorrow 14 of April 2016, in default of payment you will serve 6 months in prison.
   

JUSTICE NELSON