THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Hunt, Sio and Lemalu [2015] WSSC 189

Case name: 	Police v Hunt, Sio and Lemalu	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 189	
		
Decision date: 	23 November 2015	
		
Parties: 	Pati Hunt, male of Vaitele-uta and Vaiusu, Atapana Sio, male of Vaitele-uta, Ielu Lemalu, male of Vaitele-uta and Falelatai	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 	S894/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	JUSTICE VAAI	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Served 12 months imprisonment less any time spent in custody.	
		
Representation: 	F Lagaaia for prosecution
Unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	Possession of marijuana – most common offending – possession to make money	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	PATI HUNT male of Vaitele-uta and Vaiusu, ATAPANA SIO, male of Vaitele-uta, IELU LEMALU, male of Vaitele-uta and Falelatai
Defendants

Counsel:	
F Lagaaia for prosecution
Unrepresented

Sentence:	23 November 2015

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E
1.	The defendants were found guilty of possession of marijuana, namely 51 packets of marijuana, 6 marijuana cigarettes and 1 marijuana branch.
2.	These prohibited drugs were found on the defendants on the evening of the 26th February 2015 at Vaitele-uta.   
3.	On the evening of the offending, Amuia Amuia, a 20 year old NUS student of Lotopa was driving through Vaitele with his brother and uncle to go to EPC compound to buy top up for their power.  He saw some boys namely the defendants crossing the road.  He recognised one of the defendants as Pati, Amuia stopped the van and talked with Pati who was holding a black puma bag and a bottle of beer.  Amuia saw Pati giving the bag and beer to the other boys.  Amuia also told the court that Pati asked him if he wanted to buy marijuana, but he did not want to.  Earlier that evening the police have already been notified when a youth who went to the shop was challenged by the defendants, by the same spot where Pati and Amuia were talking.  So when Pati and Amuia were talking, the police were already on their way.  When the police came and arrived at the scene, Amuia saw Pati dropped a red Pall mall cigarette packet inside the van.  
4.	The police on their arrival took the other defendants to the police car and searched them.  Amuia was also taken outside of his van and was bodily search.  The bus stop where the other defendants were sitting was also searched.  The black bag that was seen by Amuia earlier that evening was not found.  It was later found by the police behind the bus stop.  Marijuana was found in the black bag.  Marijuana was also found in the packet which Pati dropped inside the van.  Marijuana branch was also found in the bus shelter where the other defendants were sitting.  
5.	The substantial quantities of marijuana, in the view of the court were already primed for selling by placing them in packets and rolling them into marijuana joints.  Obviously the defendants were in possession of marijuana for a commercial purpose.  Being in possession of marijuana is serious but when one is in possession for commercial use that is even more serious.  It is no wonder that our legislature has provided that 14 years imprisonment should be considered when one is found in possession of marijuana.  
6.	The defendant Pati is 27 years of age, he is unemployed from Vaiusu and from the probation report appears that he comes from a broken family, his parents had been separated when he was very young.  Ielu is 23 years from Falelauniu and currently at the time of the offending I am told by the probation service that he has been on Probation since August of this year for a charge of intentional damage.  Atapana is 25 years of age.  
7.	The Court in considering the appropriate sentence must also consider the sentences impose for similar offending in the past.  It is on that basis that the prosecution is suggesting that a term of imprisonment to commence at 4 years should be considered.  The other reason for that is that, marijuana offending is the most common offending in the country at the moment. 
8.	There is no other sentence that this court can impose but a custodial sentence.  If you were in possession not for a commercial purpose, I would have considered that a non-custodial sentence but you were obviously in possession to make money out of selling prohibited drugs.  
9.	Considering all the factors as well as your age and all the relevant factors which are in your probation report I consider 2 years as the appropriate starting point.  For your previous good record and for your relatively young age I will deduct 12 months.  You will serve 12 months imprisonment less any time spent in custody.

JUSTICE VAAI