SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Aualiitia [2016] WSSC 50

Case name: 	Police v Aualiitia	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 50	
		
Decision date: 	1 April 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v MOSE AUALIITIA male of Leauvaa-uta.

Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
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.  The period during which the accused was remanded in custody up to now is to be deducted from that sentence.

Representation: 	O Tagaloa and G Nelson for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:	Possession of narcotics – maximum penalty – sentence 	
		
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967s.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

MOSE AUALIITIA male of Leauvaa-uta.
Accused

Counsel:	
O Tagaloa and G Nelson for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	1 April 2016

S E N T E N C E
1. 	The accused Mose Aualiitia who is a 30 year old male of Leauvaa-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 pursuant to s.18.  He pleaded not guilty to the charge but was found guilty at trial.
2. 	The evidence given by the police at the trial shows that on 28 February 2014, a team of police officers from Afega went to search the house of the accused at Leauvaa-uta.  The police met the accused on the road at Leauvaa-uta and took the accused with them to his house.  When the police arrived at the house of the accused, two police officers remained with the accused in the police vehicle while the rest of the police team searched the accused’s house.  The police found inside the accused’s house a wooden speaker box which contained a small brown bag with thirteen marijuana joints and two small marijuana branches with leaves.
3. 	According to the evidence given by one police officer, the police had received information from someone that the accused was selling marijuana from his house.  The source of this information was not called as a witness by the prosecution so that this evidence is plainly hearsay.  It also appears that if the police did in fact receive such information, it was received by senior sergeant Sua Kerupi who was the leader of the police search team.  But the senior sergeant passed away before the trial of this case and the prosecution was therefore not able to call him as a witness.  In these circumstances, I am not prepared to accept that the accused was a dealer in marijuana.  I am also not prepared to draw an inference from the quantity of marijuana found in the accused’s house that he was a dealer in marijuana.  According to what the accused told the probation service, he is not a seller of marijuana but he was in possession of these marijuana substances to pay for the youths who work on his plantation.  This, however, is not setting a good example for those youths.
4. 	 The pre-sentence report shows that the accused is married with four young children only one of whom goes to school.  He cultivates a plantation and vegetable garden to support his family.  He is a first offender and character testimonials from his wife, village pulenuu, and church leader show him to have been a person of good character prior to this offending.
5. 	In passing sentence in this case, I will take 9 months as the starting point for sentence.  I will deduct 2 months for previous good character as shown from the character testimonials.  I do this bearing in mind that the accused had failed to appear in Court when this matter was first scheduled for hearing. That leaves 7 months.
6. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment.  The period during which the accused was remanded in custody up to now is to be deducted from that sentence.
-----------------------------------
     CHIEF JUSTICE