SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pati [2013] WSSC 85

Case name:  Police v Pati
Citation: [2013] WSSC 85   
Decision date: 15 October 2013
Parties: 
POLICE (prosecution) and PATI VAOGA PATI (accused) male of Faiaai, Salega.
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s):  S1825/13
Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL
Place of delivery: MULINUU
Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
F E Niumata and O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person
Catchwords: 
Sentence, possession of narcotics, aggravating and mitigating features
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Narcotics Act 1969 s.7 and under s.18 
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S1825/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A  N  D

PATI VAOGA PATI male of Faiaai , Salega.
Accused

Counsel:	F E Niumata and O Tagaloa for prosecution
		Accused in person
Sentence:	15 October 2013  

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E 
The charge
1.	The accused appears for sentence on one charge of possession of narcotics pursuant to s.7 of the Narcotics Act 1967 which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment under s.18 of the Act.  To the charge both accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. 
The offending 
2.	The accused Pati Vaoga is charged with possession of narcotics, namely, marijuana substances.  On Wednesday morning 21 August 2013 at around 7:00am, the accused was on board one of the ferries from Mulifanua to Salelologa.  A passenger on the same ferry called the Tuasivi police on his mobile phone that the accused was bringing with him on the ferry marijuana substances.  A team of police officers then went in a police vehicle to the Salelologa wharf to await the arrival of the ferry.  All of this was unknown to the accused.
3.	When the ferry arrived at the Salelologa wharf, the police were already there keeping an eye out for the unsuspecting accused.  When the accused disembarked from the ferry, the police approached him and informed him of their suspicion.  The accused was then placed in the police vehicle where the police searched the bag he was carrying. The police found three raw marijuana branches and leaves, ten dried marijuana branches, and marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag.  The total weight of these substances is estimated to yield six marijuana joints.  
4.	There is no evidence that one can smoke a marijuana branch.  According to the prosecution’s summary of facts, the total weight of the marijuana substances found on the accused is 10.8 grams which is estimated to yield  six marijuana joints.  It is not clear whether this includes the weight of the branches.  I will give the accused the benefit of the doubt and therefore assume that it does.  So the number of marijuana joints estimated from the marijuana substances found on the accused should be less than six.
The accused
5.	The accused Pati Vaoga is 23 years old.  He is from the village of Faiaai at Salega, Savaii.  He is single and works on his own plantation from which he earns $150.  He finished school at Year 11.
6.	Pati Vaoga is a first offender.  He told the probation service that he smokes marijuana as a form of relief from a hard day’s work.  So he had not been person of good character prior to the commission of this offence.
7.	This accused also told the probation service that he had heard rumors that his family has paid a fine of $1,000 to the village council for his offending.  However, he could not obtain confirmation from his family as he has been in custody since he was apprehended by the police on 21 August 2013.  The probation service has also not been able to obtain information of this penalty by the village council from the accused’s family.  I am therefore not going to take this matter into account. 
8.	The accused also apologised on his knees to the Court and promised not to offend again.  He has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.
The aggravating and mitigating features
9.	The only aggravating feature of this offending is the quantity of marijuana substances found on the accused which should be less than six joints.  There is no mitigating feature of the offending.  The mitigating feature personal to the accused is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.  I also accept that the accused is sincere in his expression of remorse to the Court. 
10.	 The accused has already spent one month three weeks and three days in custody.  In all circumstances, I consider that that is enough penalty for the accused.
The result
11.	The accused is sentenced to one month three weeks and three days imprisonment.  As he has already spent that time in custody, he is now to be released.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia, for prosecution