Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Public Prosecutor v Deo [2007] VUSC 37; Criminal Case 95 of 2006 (7 May 2007)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL CASE No.95 of 2006

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

JOHN DEO

Ms Kayleen Tavoa, Public Prosecutor
The Defendant in person and on his own behalf

JUDGMENT

This is the trial of the Defendant, John Deo. The Defendant is charged with one count of Possession of Cannabis, contrary to Section 2(13) of Dangerous Plant Act [CAP.12] and one count of cultivation, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He pleaded not guilty to both offences.

Like other 21 defendants involved in the drug offences at Melip Village in October 2006, this defendant was represented by the law firm of Ridgway Blake Lawyers from the Preliminary Inquiry to the plea stages in the Supreme Court.

The prosecution and the defence counsel have considered the case prior to Court sitting and agreed that the following statements and exhibits go in by consent:-

(1) Moses Tom

(2) George Twomey

(3) Gerald Molturalala

Exhibits

- Plants

- Photo

- Crime Scene report

The brief facts show that the defendant was arrested by the Police for possession of Cannabis. On 20 October 2006, at the community hall at Melip Village, the defendant brought to the police 18 dried plants of cannabis. The defendant was brought to Vila with the plants. The plants were identified, weighed and tested. The weight is 0.18kg. The test show that there is a positive presence of cannabis substance in the plants.

The defendant gave evidence at his trial. He admitted that he has possessed the cannabis which was the subject of the charge against him. He said he knew cannabis is god’s creation. He said he knew Vanuatu has laws but he follows only the 10 Commandments. He said he did not know the negative effect of the cannabis. He had cannabis and planted cannabis because of money.

The law is that the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence of possession of cannabis beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant. If there is a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.

Section 2(13), 4 and 17 of the Dangerous Drugs Act [CAP.12] are the relevant provisions. They provided as follows:-

"PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES AND MATERIALS

2. The .... possession in Vanuatu of the following substances and materials ... is prohibited:

(13) Cannabis"

"PROHIBITION OF CULTIVATION OF CANNABIS PLANT

4. The cultivation of any plant of the genus Cannabis shall be prohibited."

"PENALTIES FOR CONTRAVENTION OF REGULATION

17. Every contravention of this regulation shall constitute an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding 100 million Vatu or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years or to both such fine and imprisonment."

Applying the law to the facts, I am satisfied on the evidence that the prosecution has proved the offence of possession of cannabis, contrary to section 2(13) of the Dangerous Drugs Act [CAP.12] beyond reasonable doubt, against the defendant. However, the prosecution failed to prove on the required criminal standard, the offence of cultivation of cannabis, contrary to Section 4 of the Act.

VERDICT

The defendant John Deo is found guilty of the offence of possession of cannabis plants, contrary to Section 2(13) of the Dangerous Drugs Act [CAP.12] and he is convicted of that offence accordingly.

He is acquitted with the offence of cultivation of cannabis, contrary to Section 4 of the Act.

I direct that the 18 dried plants of Cannabis seized from the Defendant by the Police on 20 October 2006, be condemned by 8 May 2007 before lunch time.

DATED at Port Vila this 7th day of May, 2007

BY THE COURT

Vincent LUNABEK
Chief Justice