SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Toomata Sumeo [2013] WSSC 36

Case name: Police v Toomata Sumeo
Citation: [2013] WSSC 36
Decision date: 27 May 2013
Parties: POLICE and FAKAONO TOOMATA SUMEO, male of Vailima
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): 
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Justice Vaai
On appeal from:
Order: (sentence)
Representation: 
Leinafo Taimalelagi for prosecution
Raymond Schuster for defendant 
Catchwords: 
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU
BETWEEN:
THE POLICE
Prosecution
AND:
FAKAONO TOOMATA SUMEO male of Vailima
Defendant
Counsel:	Leinafo Taimalelagi for prosecution
Raymond Schuster for defendant 
Sentence:	27 May 2013

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E

1.	As a result of a search by the police pursuant to search warrant issued under the provisions of the Narcotics Act 1967, a glass pipe wrapped in a white booklet leaf was found behind a television set inside the defendant’s house.  The pipe was broken.
2.	When he was shown the broken pipe the defendant told the police he had kept the pipe for a long time.  Paragraph 7 of the Police Amended Summary of Facts states:
“The defendant during the interview admitted that the glass pipe found was in his possession at his home which was used to smoke marijuana and ice.”
3.	Other than the glass pipe, police search found no traces of narcotics in the pipe or elsewhere in the house, or inside the defendant’s taxi vehicle.
4.	He pleaded guilty to the charge of being in possession of the glass for the purpose of committing an offence under the Narcotics Act.
5.	The prosecution seeks a term of imprisonment of not less than 12 months imprisonment.  Paragraph 7 (a) of the Prosecution’s Sentencing Memorandum says:
“He admits having possession of the pipe for a long time and even confirmed in his caution statement that it is a pipe used for smoking marijuana and ice.  This is a clear indication of the defendant being arrogant and ignorant of the law.  It also shows his long involvement with narcotics and having full knowledge of breaking the law.”
6.	The defendant is 40 years old, married with 4 children ranging from 7 to 15 years of age.  He operates a family taxi.  In relation to the glass pipe found by the police the probation report says:
“Fakaono admitted the pipe was already broken and old because he found it in one of his taxi a long time ago.  Fakaono mentioned that the police investigated inside the pipe and found no substances because he never used it for smoking and he does not consume marijuana.”
7.	I respectfully disagree with the prosecution contention that the defendant has had a long involvement with narcotics through his admission that he had kept the glass pipe for a long time.  A broken glass pipe could not be classified as a utensil intended for the purpose of consumption of narcotics as envisaged by the Act.
8.	It is true that the defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge, but to seek a 12 months imprisonment sentence in the circumstances is in my respectful view blatantly out of proportion to the culpability and the circumstances of the offending.  He has not involved himself with drugs.  A police raid of his family home, where he lives with his father, within the full view of the neighbours, according to the probation report was a humiliation to his whole family.  That in my view is a punishment in itself.
9.	Given that the only item discovered was a broken glass pipe which the defendant had kept for a lengthy period of time and given his impeccable good record the defendant is discharged without conviction.

JUSTICE VAAI