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

Police v Satana [2009] WSSC 33 (30 March 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

SATANA aka TUIFILI MUI,
male of Lalovaea & Saipipi Savaii
Accused

Counsels: Ms F. Vaai for the prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 30 March 2009

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case appears for sentence charged with possession of 43 plastic packets of marijuana leaves, 4 marijuana cigarettes and 13.2 grams of loose marijuana leaves. However he has told the court that there were only 39 plastic packets of leaves and that is what he admits to possession of today. The prosecution have consented to my sentencing the defendant on the basis of possession of 39 small plastic packets of marijuana leaves. The charge carries a maximum penalty of seven (7) years imprisonment.

The courts attitude to drug offending is well known and has been well publicized. Imprisonment sentences will be imposed in an effort to deter such offending because of its prevalence. It is by far the number one offence in our community and no effort will be spared to try and eradicate it. Only in exceptional circumstances will offenders receive non custodial penalties. The only question for the sentencing judge in the majority of cases therefore is how long a period of imprisonment is appropriate to the particular offending.

In this case the defendant was apprehended carrying a considerable quantity of marijuana. It is significant that he was apprehended at the Fugalei market which is a well known venue for the sale and distribution of illicit narcotics. The defendant has told me that he was only holding these drugs for someone else. Satana I do not for one minute believe that. The summary of facts indicated that these narcotics were all in pre-packaged packets and organized into separate bags. I do not know how the police did their calculation but their summary of facts says the narcotics in the defendants possession was sufficient to make up some 300 plus marijuana cigarettes. At $5 per cigarette which seems to be the going rate that is an income of around $1,500.00 for the day. This is a sizable quantity and a sizeable sum of money by any measure and there is no room for arguing that this defendant was just a casual user. He is either a dealer himself or he is part of a distribution network offering marijuana for sale. Either way he was in possession for a commercial purpose and this aggravates his offending substantially. As noted in Police v Sefo [2008] WSSC 78:

"The last aggravating factor is commercial use and of all the factors this in my view is the most serious. There is a difference between the casual smoker of marijuana for recreational purposes and the man who grows and sells this illegal substance for profit. If we are to stamp out this problem in our community the dealers and distributors should be targeted by law enforcement and the court should be merciless in its treatment of them."

And distributors should beware not only of the court cracking down on drug offending but so too are the Village Councils of this country. The attitude of most village councils is clear from the fact that banishment which is the ultimate penalty is usually imposed on villages involved in drug offending and that is because as further noted in Police v Sefo:

"The impact on the community of marijuana offending is great and although no particular studies have been done in this area, general drug offending has a debilitative effect on any community. Marijuana offending is also a breeding ground for organized crime and drug trafficking and leads to involvement in more sinister drugs such as ice, cocaine, methampethamine or "P" as it is more commonly known."

Narcotics have made their presence felt in our community as evidenced by the growing number of cases involving these drugs coming before the courts. As I have stated the maximum penalty for this offence is seven years imprisonment. I will take four years as a starting point given the quantity in this case. For the defendants guilty plea even though it was made late I will allow a 25% reduction. For the fact that the defendant has no previous conviction for narcotics offending we will take a further 6 months. For what is contained in the defendants favour in the probation report and for his expression of remorse and in exercise of general leniency I deduct a further 6 months that leaves 2 years. I deduct the defendants time in custody which was one week in December 2008 and 5 weeks awaiting sentence a period of 6 weeks or a month and a half. That is deducted from the 2 years leaving a period of 1 year 10½ months. Defendant is convicted and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for that period.

JUSTICE NELSON