Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Alcohol and Drugs Court of Samoa

Police v Pati [2016] WSADC 6 (21 June 2016)

ALCOHOL AND DRUGS COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pati [2016] WSADC 6

IN THE ALCOHOL AND DRUGS COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D:

SIO PATI male of Toamua.
Participant

Counsel:
F Ioane for Prosecution
V Schuster for Participant

Decision: 21 June 2016

DECISION OF TUATAGALOA J EXITING PARTICIPANT

The Participant

1. The defendant Sio Pati a 25 year old male of Toamua appeared before the Supreme Court on 21 December 2015 and pleaded guilty to the charge against him of, with intent to cause actual bodily harm wounded the victim, contrary to s.118 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and to the individual charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a brick, without a lawful purpose, contrary to s.25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment.
2. The defendant was given a sentencing indication of 18 months imprisonment.
3. According to the assessment by the ADC clinician, the defendant Sio Pati meets the DSM-5 criteria for alcohol dependence because of his recurrent use of alcohol in a 12 month period and it is recommended that the defendant be referred to complete the Intensive Outpatient Program through the ADC.
4. The defendant was remanded to the Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC) for a determination hearing at 2pm on Tuesday 16 February 2016.
5. This defendant was accepted in to the Alcohol and Drugs Court following a determination hearing in the Alcohol and Drugs Court on 16 February 2016.
6. A defendant when accepted in to the Alcohol and Drugs Court is referred to as a ‘participant’.

The Participant before the Court

7. Sio Pati was to start on Phase 1 (6 weeks) programs of treatment and was due back to court for first monitoring on 1 March 2016. However, Sio never appeared nor complied with this programs and bail conditions.
8. A second opportunity was given to this participant to appear and tell the court why he did not appear in court nor complied with his programs and bail conditions. The participant was informed by the treatment team to appear in court on 15 March 2016.
9. The participant appeared on 15 March 2016 and advised the court that he forgot about his court appointment on 1 March 2016 and that he was also sick. Sio was given another opportunity by ADC to continue with his program which he had only completed 2 weeks of Phase 1 (6 weeks) and to appear on 29 March 2016.
10. On 29 March 2016 the participant did not appear nor attended his programs and have again breached his bail conditions. A warrant of arrest was issued by ADC.
11. This participant was only found by Police on Friday, 17 June 2016. He was arrested and remanded in custody to appear before the ADC on Tuesday, 21 June 2016.

Exit

12. In light of this participant’s persistent failure to comply with his treatment programs, bail conditions and court appointments, I conclude that this participant’s continued participation in the Intensive Outpatient Program through ADC is untenable.
13. The participant, Sio Pati is exited from ADC on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 and referred to the Supreme Court for mention on Monday, 27 June 2016 to be sentenced.
14. The Alcohol and Drugs Court recommends for an imprisonment term to be imposed as per its sentencing indication given on 9 February 2016.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA