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

Police v Tiatia [2016] WSADC 8 (5 July 2016)

ALCOHOL AND DRUGS COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tiatia [2016] WSADC 8

ALCOHOL AND DRUGS COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D:

ROPATI TIATIA male of Saina.
Participant

Counsel:
F Ioane for Prosecution
V Schuster for Participant

Sentencing: 5 July 2016

SENTENCING DECISION OF TUATAGALOA J

The Participant

1. The participant Ropati Tiatia a 37 year old male of Saina appeared before the Supreme Court on 25 January 2016 and pleaded guilty to the charge of theft as a servant contrary to ss.161(a) & 165(e) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
2. Ropati was given a sentencing indication of 4 months imprisonment.
3. According to the assessment by the ADC clinician, Ropati meets the DSM-5 criteria for alcohol dependence because of his recurrent use of alcohol in a 12 month period and he was recommended to complete the Intensive Outpatient Program through the Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC).
4. Ropati was accepted in to the Alcohol and Drugs Court following a determination hearing in the Alcohol and Drugs Court on 16 February 2016.
5. When a defendant is accepted in ADC that person is referred to as ‘participant’. The participant is required to (i) sign the Participant Agreement while undergoing treatment in ADC and (ii) complete the treatment programs with bail conditions.

The Treatment Programs:

6. The treatment programs through the ADC consist of two phases. Phase 1 called ‘Toe Afua se Taeao’ is for 6 weeks and Phase 2 is for 12 weeks. The participant upon completion of both treatment programs is then sentenced by the court.
7. Ropati started his treatments on 17 February 2016 with Phase 1 (6 weeks) programs and completed on 23 March 2016 without any lapses or breach. His bail conditions was varied to only sign in once a week and he was also allowed to stay with his wife and children in the weekends at his wife’s family at Moamoa.
8. Ropati started on Phase 2 treatments of 12 weeks on 30 March 2016 and completed on 30 June 2016. There were some behavioural issues or lapses by Ropati during the 12 weeks treatment in terms of not meeting with the sui ole nuu (CJS) as he is required on a weekly basis and that he remained with his wife and children during the week at Moamoa when he was supposed to only be there in the weekends. He was sanctioned with a curfew and to meet with his CJS 3x a week instead of twice. There were no treatment issues, that is, Ropati did not miss any of the treatment sessions.
9. Ropati was formally acknowledged in court on 5 July 2016 for full completion of the Intensive Outpatient Treatment program. He was also sentenced on this day.

Sentencing

10. Ms Ioane for the prosecution on the participant’s completion of the treatment programs and being the first to complete from the ADC she recommended a 12 months supervision with the following special conditions:
    1. To attend relationship counseling with the ADC clinician
    2. To join AA meetings
    3. Not to consume alcohol
    4. To provide ongoing support with the ADC programs.
11. Mrs Vanessa Schuster for the participant agreed with the special conditions but recommended a 6 months supervision on the following reasons:
    • Ropati has fully completed the programs for 5 months
    • Ropati has not touched alcohol for 7 months when he was charged and throughout his time in ADC
    • Ropati throughout has shown high commitment to his treatments and shown leadership to his fellow participants in the programs.
    • There were no major lapses by Ropati.
12. The aim of the ADC is to reduce the risk of offending by ensuring that those with a serious alcohol or drugs problem are required to undertake appropriate rehabilitative programs under the strict supervision of the ADC, thereby reducing their risk of reoffending.
13. ADC is a therapeutic court. Therefore, a custodial sentence after having undergone treatment is not conducive to the aims and purpose of ADC.
14. The obvious sentence for the court to impose is non-custodial term of supervision. The only issue is the length of the supervision term and what (if any) special conditions to be imposed. The court considers the following in passing sentence:
    • Compliance by the participant to bail conditions and to the treatment programs
    • Abstinence from alcohol
    • Physical and behavioural changes noticed throughout the participant’s journey in ADC.
15. There have been very few lapses by the participant but those lapses were behavioural (not reporting to CJS and remaining with the wife during the week instead of just weekends) and not treatment issues (missing treatment or consumed alcohol). The court had addressed those lapses by imposing sanctions. The treatment team found Ropati to be of good leadership material, reliable and trusted by fellow participants of ADC. The team believed that he will be a good role model and ambassador for the ADC treatment programs.
16. Lastly, this participant is one of first four participants referred to the ADC and he is the first to complete the treatment programs.
17. In considering all that, the participant Ropati Tiatia is convicted and sentenced to 7 months supervision with the following special conditions:
    • To attend relationship counselling with the ADC clinician
    • To join AA meetings
    • Not to consume alcohol
    • To provide ongoing support with the ADC programs.
      

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA