Police v Masi [2016] WSSC 204 (29 November 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Masi [2016] WSSC 204

Case name:	Police v Masi
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 204
Decision date:	29 November 2016
Parties:	MIKA MASI male of Vaiusu and Lotofaga, Aleipata
Hearing date(s):	29 November 2016
File number(s):	S2366/15-S2373/15
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	CHIEF JUSTICE SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. After serving his imprisonment sentence, the accused is to undergo the six weeks Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou programme conducted by the probation service. - Any time that the accused has already spent in custody pending the outcome of this matter, is to be deducted from his imprisonment sentence.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Possession of narcotics – aggravating features – 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

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

MIKA MASI male of Vaiusu and Lotofaga Aleipata.
Accused

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 29 November 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused Mika Masi of Vaiusu and Lotofaga, Aleipata, 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 pursuant to s.18. To the charge the accused pleaded not guilty but he was found guilty at trial.

The offending

2. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, which I accepted, essentially shows that on Saturday morning, 24 July 2015, constable Richard Stowers who was in plain clothes was at a clothes shop on the ground floor of the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) building when he saw the accused talking to three youths before one of these youths gave him a $5 note in exchange for one marijuana joint which the accused took out from the small bag he was carrying. Elsie Vili who works at the said clothes shop was also watching what the accused was doing and she was also called as a witness by the prosecution. Her evidence was to the same effect as that of constable Stowers.
3. Constable Stowers then followed the accused to where he was going before telling the accused that he is a police officer. Constable Stowers then asked the accused to accompany him to the Apia police station in a taxi. At the police station, the accused in the presence of constable Stowers and constable Onosai was found to be in possession of two parcels. One of these parcels was found to contain nineteen (19) marijuana joints wrapped in a foil and the other parcel was found to contain nine (9) marijuana joints also wrapped in a foil. One pall mall packet was also found in the accused’s possession which contained one marijuana joint. The total weight of these marijuana substances was 21.5 grams. A half marijuana joint weighing 0.2 grams was also found by the police in the accused’s possession. So there were twenty nine and a half (29½) marijuana joints with a total weight of 21.7 grams found in the accused’s possession.
4. The marijuana substances were then given to constable Alapati Moafanua the police drugs exhibits officer who was also called as a witness by the prosecution. Constable Moafanua locked these substances in the police exhibits room. Subsequently, constable Moafanua took samples from these substances for scientific analysis by the Scientific Research Organisation of Samoa (SROS). It was the scientist Phillip Reti who scientifically examined and tested these substances. He was also called as a witness by the prosecution and he testified that the substances he examined contained resin and were cannabis plant material.

The accused

5. As the pre-sentence report shows, the accused is the youngest of six (6) siblings. He finished school at Year 12 due to his family’s limited financial resources. He then worked on his family’s plantation to support his family. In 2010 he was helping out with a cousin’s handicraft stall at the Fugalei market where he gained knowledge and experience in making handicrafts. In 2011, he started his own handicraft stall. He has a wife and they have a six (6) year old daughter.
6. According to the pre-sentence report, police records show that the accused has no previous conviction. However, the prosecution produced a previous conviction for the accused for drunkenness in 2002. Given the age of this previous conviction and the fact that it is for a different kind of offence, I will treat the accused as a first offender for present purposes.

The aggravating features relating to the offending

7. As submitted by counsel for the prosecution, the aggravating features relating to this offending are the quantity of marijuana substances found in the accused’s possession and the fact that the accused was evidently in possession of those substances for the purpose of selling them for personal gain.

The mitigating features relating to the offending

8. There are no mitigating features relating to the offending.

The aggravating features relating to the accused as offender

9. As I have decided to treat the accuseds as a first offender for present purposes, there is no aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender.

The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender

10. The personal circumstances of the accused, especially the character testimonials from his brother and the leader of his church, set out in his pre-sentence report entitles the accused to some credit.

Discussion

11. Given the need for deterrence in this kind of case and the aggravating features relating to the offending, I will take 9 months as the starting point for sentencing. I will then deduct 2 months for the accused’s personal circumstances as set out in his pre-sentence report. That leaves 7 months. I will impose the following sentence on the accused.

Result

12. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. After serving his imprisonment sentence, the accused is to undergo the six weeks Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou programme conducted by the probation service.
13. Any time that the accused has already spent in custody pending the outcome of this matter, is to be deducted from his imprisonment sentence.

CHIEF JUSTICE