SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Iole [2014] WSSC 72

Case name: 	Police v Iole	
		
Citation: 	[2014] WSSC 72	
		
Decision date: 	17 November 2014	
		
Parties: 	POLICE Prosecution A  N  D TAPU MUAAU IOLE male of Saanapu.	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S2430/14-S2431/14	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	MULINUU	
		
Judge(s): 	CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:		
		
Representation: 	F Lagaaia for prosecution
Accused in person	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:	Cultivation of narcotics, maximum penalty, aggravating and mitigating features, sentence	
		
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967 s.6(b)
Narcotics Amendment Act 2009	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Lafoai Keresoma	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NOs: S2430/14-S2431/14

BETWEEN

P  O  L  I  C  E

Prosecution

A  N  D

TAPU MUAAU IOLE male of Saanapu.

Accused

Counsel
F Lagaaia for prosecution
Accused in persons

Sentence:	17 November 2014  

S E N T E N C E
The charge
1.	The accused appears for sentence on one charge of cultivation of narcotics, namely, two marijuana plants, contrary to s.6(b) of the Narcotics Act 1967, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment under s.18 of the Act. To the charge the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending
2.	As shown from the prosecution’s summary of facts which was confirmed by the accused, on 13 August 2014 at around 10am in the morning, the police were informed of a commotion between two families in the village of Saanapu that involved marijuana.  When the police arrived at the scene of the commotion, they were informed by someone of marijuana at the house of the accused.  The police then went to the house of the accused.  They were met outside of the house by the wife of the accused.  The police then explained to the accused’s wife the purpose of their visit.
3.	When the police looked around the house they noticed two pot plants on the roof of the house and asked the accused what they were.  He replied that they were tomatoes.  However, when the police brought down the two pot plants from the roof of the house, they found that they were two marijuana plants, each three inches in height.  The accused was then apprehended and taken to the police post at Lotofaga, Safata, where he was cautioned and interviewed.
The accused
4.	The accused is a 45 year old male of Saanapu.  He is married with eight children.  He has a plantation from which he earns income by selling plantation produce.  His family also earns income from his wife’s handicrafts.
5.	The accused is a first offender and the testimonials from the pulenuu of his village and a representative of his wife’s family show that he had a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence.  The accused has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.
6.	The pre-sentence report shows that the accused has been banished from his village due to this offending.
The aggravating and mitigating features
7.	In relation to the offending, the features which tend to aggravate this offending are the number of marijuana plants cultivated by the accused and the accused misleading the police when asked about the pot plants on the roof of his house and he replied that they were tomatoes.
8.	The mitigating features which are personal to the accused as offender are the fact that he is a first offender and had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence, the fact that the village council of Sanaapu has already punished the accused by banishing him from the village, and the accused’s plea of guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.
Discussion 
9.	In considering what should be the appropriate penalty for this case, I take into account the number of marijuana plants involved and the maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment for cultivation of narcotics.  The maximum penalty for cultivation of narcotics was 7 years imprisonment but because of the persistent high prevalence of narcotic offences over many years, the maximum penalty was increased to 14 years imprisonment under the Narcotics Amendment Act 2009 which came into force on 12 July 2010.  The need for deterrence in narcotics offending is still a paramount consideration for sentencing purposes. Narcotics offending is also still viewed with seriousness by the community:  see, for example, Police v Lafoai Keresoma (2014) (sentence delivered on 14 November 2014).  This attitude of the community is again reflected in this case by the penalty of banishment imposed by the village council of Saanapu on the present accused.  The policy of this Court over the years with regard to sentencing in narcotics cases is also to impose sentences of imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify a non-custodial sentence.
10.	In the recent past, there has been a slight decrease in the number of narcotics cases brought before the Court during criminal mentions.  However, I am of the view that it is too early at this stage to relax the Court’s current sentencing policy in narcotics cases.  The reason is that there is a risk that a relaxation of the Court’s current sentencing policy may result in a resurgence of possession and cultivation of narcotics offences to their previous level so soon after the maximum penalty was increased to 14 years imprisonment under the Narcotics Amendment Act 2009 which came into force on 12 July 2010. In fact at the criminal mentions this afternoon there was again an increase in narcotics cases from previous mentions.
The result
11.	For this case, the accused is sentenced to 4 months imprisonment.  Any time that the accused has spent in custody pending the outcome of this matter is to be deducted from that penalty.
•	
•	
-----------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE