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

Police v Fania [2013] WSSC 40 (17 June 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Fania [2013] WSSC 40

Case name: Police v Lewis Fania

Citation: [2013] WSSC 40

Conclusion date: 24 May 2013

Sentence: 17 June 2013

Parties: Police (prosecution) and Lewis Fania male of Afega

Hearing date(s): 24 May 2013

File number(s): S2164/12

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Chief Justice Patu Falefatu Sapolu

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Teueli for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2164/12

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

LEWIS FANIA male of Afega.

Accused

Counsel:

L Teueli for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 17 June 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of possession of narcotics which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment to which he had pleaded not guilty. At trial, after all the evidence for the prosecution had been adduced and the prosecution had closed its case, the accused admitted to the charge thus effectively pleading guilty in the last minute.

The offending

2. About midnight on 20 December 2012, the accused and a friend took a taxi from the RSA nightclub in Apia to go home. After buying takeaway at the Sunrise restaurant, the taxi headed to Vaitele-uta where the accused’s friend was dropped off. The accused then told the taxi driver to take him to Afega. On the way to Afega, the accused fell asleep inside the taxi as he was heavily intoxicated. When the taxi arrived at Afega, the taxi driver tried to wake up the accused to point out his family’s house but the accused would not wake up.
3. The taxi driver then took the accused to the Afega police post. Even the police there could not woke up the accused. So the police carried the sleeping accused into the police post. When the police later searched the accused as a matter of routine procedure, they found on him a plastic paper in which were wrapped loose marijuana leaves estimated to be the equivalent of three joints and sixty seven marijuana seeds. The accused woke up to being charged with possession of narcotics.
4. When the charge was called for mention, the accused pleaded not guilty. However, at the trial, the accused, at the conclusion of the case by the prosecution, admitted to the charge.

The aggravating and mitigating factors

5. Apart from the quantity of marijuana substances found on the accused, there is no other aggravating factor relating to the offending. There is also no aggravating factor relating to the accused as offender.
6. There is also no mitigating factor relating to the offending. The only mitigating factor relating to the accused as offender is the fact that he is a first offender. I give no credit to the accused’s admission of guilt which was only made after the prosecution had adduced all of its evidence and closed its case. This was too late.
7. The accused said that the marijuana substances did not belong to him but were given to him at the RSA nightclub where he had been drinking by a fisherman he does not know. Whether or not this is true, I do not consider it a mitigating factor.

The decision

8. Having regard to the maximum penalty for this offence, the need for deterrence, and the only aggravating factor relating to the offending which is the quantity of marijuana substances found on the accused, I would set a starting point of 6 months. For the only mitigating factor relating to the accused as offender which is the fact that he is a first offender, I deduct 2 months. That leaves 4 months.
9. The accused is sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. Any time he has spent in prison pending the outcome of this matter is to be further deducted from that sentence.
   

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia, for prosecution