Police v Stanley [2019] WSSC 45 (25 July 2019)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Stanley [2019] WSSC 45

Case name:	Police v Stanley
Citation:	[2019] WSSC 45
Decision date:	25 July 2019
Parties:	POLICE v DARREN STANLEY male of Vaiusu-tai.
Judgment date(s):	25 July 2019
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUSTICE LEIATAUALESA DARYL MICHAEL CLARKE
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment less time remanded in custody.
Representation:	F Ioane for Prosecution A Lesa for the Accused
Catchwords:	aggravating and mitigating factors – cultivation of narcotics –starting point for sentence – sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967 s. 6(1)(a)
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

DARREN STANLEY male of Vaiusu-tai.
Accused

Counsel: F Ioane for Prosecution

A Lesa for the Accused

Hearing Date 12 July 2019
Judgment: 25 July 2019

JUDGMENT

[1] Darren Stanley, you appear for sentencing on 1 charge of cultivation of narcotics contrary to section 6(1)(a) of the Narcotics Act 1967.

[2] You pleaded not guilty to the charge and following a defended hearing, I found that the charge had been proven by prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Offending:

[3] In my written judgment of the 24th May 2019, I set out in detail the evidence at trial. Briefly stated, you resided at Vaiusu-tai. Your neighbor was Taitaifono Ulugia Sala Suivai. You are also related.

[4] On the 21st August 2018, a Police raid was conducted on Taitaifono’s property. Found on Taitaifono’s property was 71 marijuana plants. The height and sizes of the marijuana plants were not led in evidence, an oversight in the prosecution case meaning that those particulars in the charge were not proven. Nevertheless, it is plain in the photographs exhibit P2 that the marijuana was not small, with some of the plants well grown and consistent with the sizes referred to in the sentencing decision of Nelson ACJ of Taitaifono.

[5] I accepted the prosecution evidence that together with Taitaifono, you planted the marijuana, waited for it to grow and that together with Taitaifono, you grew the marijuana. You attended on Taitaifono’s land regularly, 3 to 4 times per week as part of your cultivation of the marijuana.

The Accused:

[6] You are a 23 year old male. According to your PSR, you are the eldest of 7 children. You continued school to Don Bosco but do not appear to have completed Don Bosco.

[7] You are married and according to your wife’s letter to the Court, you have three young children and reside with your wife’s family at Magiagi. Your wife pleads for the Court’s leniency.

[8] You previously worked as a plumber. You have prior convictions for other offending including for offences of dishonesty. This is your first offending for narcotics.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:

[9] The aggravating factors in relation to the accused’s offending are: (a) the significant amount of marijuana cultivated by you and your co-accused; (b) the offending necessarily involved a high degree of premeditation and planning.

[10] In respect of the mitigating features to your offending, I accept on the facts that your co-defendant and older family member on whose land the marijuana was grown had a higher degree of culpability than you. You however remained a principal offender also in that you both together cultivated the marijuana together.

[11] In terms of the mitigating features personal to you, there are none. This matter proceeded to trial and you have prior convictions which mean that you are not eligible for any deductions for prior good character. In your Pre-Sentence Report, you also continue to dispute your role in the offending saying to the Probation Service that you have doubt as to the Court’s ruling. You however express remorse for your offending, which is inconsistent with your continued dispute of the charge for which I have found you guilty.

[12] I have however considered your family circumstances and your young children and will allow a minor deduction for your personal circumstances.

Discussion:

[13] Prosecution seeks an imprisonment term of 6 years imprisonment. Your counsel submits that a 5 year imprisonment term is appropriate bearing in mind the sentencing of your co-defendant that adopted a 5 year start point for sentence.

[14] Given that Taitaifono was sentenced with a start point of 5 years imprisonment and that start point necessarily adopted a totality in sentencing approach that included the charge of possession of 3 marijuana cigarettes, a 6 year start point is inappropriate in your case. This is further so given that as I have said earlier, Taitaifono on whose land the marijuana was grown had a greater degree of culpability than you.

[15] The appropriate start point for sentence is 4½ years imprisonment. This takes into account your lower level of culpability than Taitaifono and the fact that his start point necessarily included the 3 marijuana cigarettes.

[16] I deduct 3 months for your personal circumstances from the start point.

The Penalty:

[17] Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment less time remanded in custody.

[18] Darren, you have started on a road of offending that will take you to prison. You are however a young man with a young family and from my observations in Court, you have a family that loves and supports you. You fortunate because many of the young men that come before the Court do not have that support.

[19] You therefore have promise for your future if you can change your life and I strongly urge you to change your life once your sentence is completed, if not for yourself, for your family and in particular your young children who need their father in their lives. There is no future for you if you continue to involve yourself in drugs and other offending. Change is possible but it must start with you wanting to change your life Darren and I hope you do.

JUSTICE CLARKE