Police v Savaiinaea [2017] WSSC 23 (12 April 2017)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Savaiinaea [2017] WSSC 23

Case name:	Police v Savaiinaea
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 23
Decision date:	12 April 2017
Parties:	POLICE v FAIFUA TAAMILOSAGA SAVAIINAEA male of Tulaele.
Hearing date(s):	12 April 2017
File number(s):	S276/17
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 6 months supervision
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Alcohol and Drugs Court – clinician – possession of narcotics – programme facilitator – Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou psycho-education Alcohol and Drugs Programme -
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967 ss.7&18
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

File Number: S276/17

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D
FAIFUA TAAMILOSAGA SAVAIINAEA male of Tulaele.

Accused

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 12 April 2017

S EN T E N C E

The charge

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

The offending

2. As it appears from the prosecution’s summary of facts, on 26 January 2017 in the evening, the accused went to the Savalalo Flea Market and bought one marijuana joint from a stranger for $5. He then walked along the seawall to return home. As he was approaching the Catholic Cathedral at Mulivai he was stopped by a police patrol and taken to the Apia police station on suspicion of a different matter. When body searched by the police, the one marijuana joint in his pocket was found.

The accused

3. As it appears from the pre-sentence report, the accused is a 26 year old male of Talimatau. He is single. He finished school at Year 13. After school, he stayed home doing the usual household chores for his family before taking up a job as an apprentice carpenter for one year. He is now staying at home again doing household chores for his family.
4. The accused told the probation service that he started smoking marijuana in 2016 as a result of the influence of his village friends. He used to smoke one marijuana joint a day. However, since he has been charged for this matter, he stopped smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol.
5. The accused was referred, after he entered his guilty plea to the charge against him, to the Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC) clinician for an assessment and possible consideration for a determination hearing by the ADC. After the assessment of the accused, the clinician recommended that the accused should be referred to the six week Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou psycho-education Alcohol and Drugs Programme. The accused was accordingly ordered by the Court to attend that programme. He has done so and has been issued with a certificate of due completion. The report from the programme facilitator shows that the accused was an active participant who contributed well to the program and has been in abstinence from alcohol and drugs for three months.
6. The accused has one previous conviction in 2011 for a different type of offence for which he was given a suspended sentence of 6 months.

The aggravating and mitigating features

7. In relation to the offending, I do not consider that there is any aggravating feature. I also do not consider that the accused’s previous conviction in 2011 for a different type of offence is an aggravating feature relating to him as offender. On the other hand, the successful completion by the accused of the six week Toe Afua Se Taeao Fou psycho-education Alcohol and Drugs Programme and his early guilty plea to the charge are mitigating features relating to him as offender.

Discussion

8. Having considered the mitigating features relating to the accused as offender and the absence of any aggravating features, I have decided to impose a non-custodial sentence as recommended by both the probation service and counsel for the prosecution.

Result

9. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months supervision.

CHIEF JUSTICE