IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sagote [2025] WSSC 76 (27 August 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Sagote	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 76	
		
Decision date: 	27 August 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) and IPUAURO SAGOTE male of Faleula-uta (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court, CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:

	Possession of 14 marijuana branches: 28 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of utensils: 12 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of unlawful firearms: 18 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of firearms without a permit: 12 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of unlawful ammunitions: 18 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of ammunitions without a permit: 12 months’ imprisonment
All sentences are to be served concurrently less time in custody.	
		
Representation: 	T Fesili for Prosecution
I Sapolu for the Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	Possession of marijuana, possession of utensils, possession of unlawful firearms without permit, possession of ammunitions, possession of unlawful weapons, plastic zip-lock bags, clear pipes, early guilty plea, 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967 s7&s18, sections 12(3) of the Arms Ordinance 1960, section 7(1) & (4) of the Arms Ordinance 1960, section 8 Village Fono Act 1990	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Maposua [2010] WSSC 85 (28 July 2010)

Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

IPUAURO SAGOTE male of Faleula-uta.

Defendant

Counsel:	T Fesili for prosecution
		I Sapolu for defendant.  

Sentence:	27 August 2025

SENTENCE OF TUATAGALOA J
The charge
1. 	The defendant appears for sentence on the following charges:
(a)	Narcotics Act 1967
•	One (1) count of possession of marijuana, namely fourteen (14) marijuana branches weighing 30.30grams contrary to sections 7 and 18 of the Narcotics Act 1967 with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
•	One (1) count of possession of utensils, namely two (2) broken clear glass pipes, one (1) salter scale, two (2) straws and three (3) used plastic zip-lock bags for the purpose of committing an offence contrary to sections 13(b) of the Narcotics Act 1967 with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $10,000 units or both.
(b)	Arms Ordinance 1960
•	One (1) count of possession of unlawful weapons, namely one (1) 9mm semi-automatic pistol (Bruce), one (1) 22 revolver pistol, one (1) 38 special revolver pistol and one (1) semi-automatic pistol contrary to sections 12(3) of the Arms Ordinance 1960 with a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
•	One (1) count of possession of firearms without a permit, namely one (1) 12 gauge pump action, one (1) 12 gauge over and under, one (1) 22 bolt action rifle and one (1) semi-automatic rifle contrary to section 7(1) & (4) of the Arms Ordinance 1960 with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2000 or both.
•	One (1) count of possession of unlawful ammunitions, namely 147 SLR live ammunitions, one (1) 12 gauge over and under, five (5) 38 special live ammunitions, five (5) 9 mm hallow point and seven (7) 9mm full jacket live ammunitions contrary to section 12(3) of the Arms Ordinance 1960 with a maximum penalty of 5years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.
•	One (1) count of possession of ammunitions without a permit, namely sixteen (16) 22 live ammunitions and fourteen (14) 12 gauge live ammunitions contrary to section 7(1) & (4) of the Arms Ordinance 1960 with a maximum penalty of 2years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2000 or both.
The offending
2. 	According to the Summary of Facts accepted by the defendant, the charges were a result of a police raid of the defendant’s residence. The defendant was present but tried to run away with two firearms through a backdoor. 
The Defendant
3. 	The accused is 48 years old of Faleula-uta, a self-employed mechanic, married with ten children.
4. 	His wife speaks highly of him in the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) that he is a hardworking, trustworthy and loving husband and father. The wife seeks the Court’s mercy on passing sentence.
5. 	The defendant has previous convictions including a conviction of similar nature of being in possession of unlawful firearms whereby he was sentenced in March 2021 to twenty-eight (28) months imprisonment.  The defendant as a result of the current charges has been banished from the village of Faleula. The defendant is not of prior good character.
6. 	  The defendant has pleaded guilty.
Aggravating features of the offending
7. 	The aggravating features of the offending are:
7.1	The quantity of marijuana found of 14 branches weighing at 30.30grams is no small amount. 
7.2	Being in possession of unlawful or illegal firearms and live ammunitions is aggravating in itself. These firearms and ammunitions are not allowed in this country. The presence of unlawful live ammunitions hint at the defendant having access to such firearms although none were found.
7.3	Not having registered some of the firearms strongly shows total disregard of the law.

Mitigating factors
8. 	The only mitigating factor is the defendant’s early guilty plea. However, I take into account the village penalty of banishment. Section 8 Village Fono Act 1990 provides that where punishment has been imposed by a village on any person and that person is convicted by a Court of a crime or offence in respect of the same matter, the Court shall take into account in mitigation of sentence the punishment imposed by that village.
9. 	I place very little weight to the accused change of plea for the following reasons – (i) the change of plea was late and (ii) the accused had his backpack on him yet he denied the charges and only changed plea after four (4) months on the day of hearing.
Discussion
10. 	Possession of illegal substances in the form of marijuana and methamphetamine are very serious offending reflected in the maximum penalties it attracts. Marijuana is classified as a Class B narcotic that attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years while that of methamphetamine is a Class A narcotic with a life imprisonment. They both have a very serious impact on the community. 
11. 	I do not accept Counsel for the defendant’s submissions that the scale found was used for the weighing of tints for car paints when there were three used plastic zip-lock bags, straws and broken glass pipes found by the police at the same time. The presence of these utensils used for the smoking of methamphetamine hints that the defendant also uses methamphetamine. 
12. 	The courts policy in relation to drug offending is well known unless there are exceptional circumstances which would justify a non-custodial sentence. Drug offenders must expect stern measures from the courts to reflect intolerance by society towards drug abusers. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify a non-custodial sentence. 
13. 	There is no evidence that the quantity of marijuana found is for commercial purpose but personal use. I do not accept the defendant’s excuse in the PSR that he uses marijuana as a ‘booster’ of strength for the work he does to justify being in possession of illegal substances. I also do not believe that he is truly remorseful for he has again re-offended.
14. 	I take the totality approach and take the offence of possession of marijuana as the most serious offending. Having regard to the high maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment for possession of narcotics, the need for deterrence, and the aggravating features of this offending, a custodial sentence is an appropriate sentence in this case. This is in line with the judicial response to such offending. Per Slicer J in Police v Maposua [2010] WSSC 85 (28 July 2010)
	The courts impose sentences within a statutory guide. It is for parliament to state its view of the seriousness of a crime in its fixing of statutory punishments. The courts are required to accept the statements in the legislation in the light of social values and circumstances. The courts are responsible for assessing penalties in individual cases and over time might set a guide to appropriate penalties. But larger social and political issues remain the province of parliament.
15. 	The Prosecution recommend the starting point of 3-4 years while Counsel for the defendant seems to suggest (through the authorities she refers) the starting point of 3 years.
16. 	I find appropriate the starting point of 42 months and deduct 6 months for the village penalty of banishment, which leaves 36 months. I give a 25% discount of 8 months for the guilty plea (though late). The end sentence is 28 months 
Sentence
17. 	The defendant, Ipuauro Sagote is convicted and sentenced as follows:
18. 	Possession of 14 marijuana branches: 28 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of utensils: 12 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of unlawful firearms: 18 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of firearms without a permit: 12 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of unlawful ammunitions: 18 months’ imprisonment
•	Possession of ammunitions without a permit: 12 months’ imprisonment
19. 	All sentences are to be served concurrently less time in custody.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA