SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Poloai [2015] WSSC 61

Case name: 	Police v Poloai	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 61	
		
Decision date: 	17 June 2015	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (prosecution) v AKAPO TAFAFUNAI POLOAI (accused)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Sapolu	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	Convicted and sentenced to 10 months supervision and ordered to perform 60 hours of community work.

Representation: 	R Titi for prosecution
Accused in person	
		
Catchwords: 	Possession of narcotics - maximum penalty – early guilty plea – aggravating and mitigating features – previous good character – first offender – sentence 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967 s.7 	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A  N  D

AKAPO TAFAFUNAI POLOAI male of Vailele and Lufilufi.
Accused

Counsel:	
R Titi for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	17 June 2015
		
S E N T E N C E
The charge
1. 	The accused appears for sentence on one charge of possession of narcotics, namely, three marijuana joints, contrary to s.7 of the Narcotics Act 1967, which carries a maximum   penalty of 14 years imprisonment.  To the charge, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending 
2. 	As shown from the prosecution’s summary of facts confirmed by the accused, the accused is a 20 year old student at the National University of Samoa (NUS).  On Thursday 16 April 2015 at the NUS campus, the accused approached a group of young men sitting behind one of the university’s buildings smoking cigarettes and told them he had marijuana joints.  The accused then left.  Shortly afterwards, one of the NUS security officers approached the same group of young men and asked them whether they were smoking marijuana.  One of the young men in the group told the security officer about the accused who had just gone by and what he had said that he has marijuana joints.
3. 	The security officer then radioed the other security officers on the NUS campus to be on the lookout for the accused.  Soon afterwards, one of the other security officers saw the accused walking by and asked him if he had any marijuana substance on him.  The accused said no.  The security officer then reached for the pocket of the accused’s shirt and got out three marijuana joints wrapped in pieces of foil.  When these joints were shown to the accused, he simply said nothing.  The accused was then taken to the NUS student counsellor who reported the matter to the police.  The three joints weighed 2.2 grams.
4. 	The pre-sentence report on the accused shows that the accused had bought these marijuana joints in the morning at the market for $15 before going to the university.  He told the probation service that he started smoking marijuana last Christmas due to peer pressure.
The accused
5. 	The accused is a student at the NUS studying tourism and hospitality.  At the moment, his studies are on hold pending the outcome of this matter.  He has had a good school record and was head prefect at the college he attended.
6. 	The accused is also a first offender.  The testimonials received by the probation service from his parents, the pastor of his church, and the pulenuu of his village all show that the accused had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence.
Aggravating feature relating to the offending
	Place of offending
7. 	I have again decided, as submitted buy counsel for the prosecution, that the place of this offending is an aggravating feature relating to the offending.  A university is a place for higher education and learning and is not an appropriate place for a student to be in possession of drugs.  This is the second time this year that students from the NUS have appeared before t his Court for being in possession of marijuana while on the university campus.
Mitigating features relating to the accused as offender
(a)	Youth 
8. 	The young age of the accused and the fact that he is a student with his future still before him is a mitigating feature relating to the accused as offender.
(b)	Previous good character
9. 	Being a person of previous good character and a first offender is another mitigating feature personal to the accused as offender.
(c)	Early guilty plea
10. 	The accused’s guilty plea at the earliest opportunity is an important mitigating feature relating to him as offender.
Discussion 
11. 	A university is an institution for higher education and learning.  It is not a place for a student to do whatever he or she likes to do regardless of whether it breaks the law.  This is the second case of drug offending by a student on the NUS campus to come before the Court this year.  The Court is very concerned about this.  If this situation continues, the Court may have to impose tougher penalties on university students in order to stop drug offending on the university campus.  A university is supposed to be a place for higher education and learning and not for drug offending.
12. 	I have decided to give the present accused a second chance to redeem himself and mend his ways.  But this is no guarantee that the Court will show the same leniency on any other university student who appears again on drug offending committed on the university campus.
Result 
13. 	Having regard to the aggravating and mitigating features of this case, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 10 months supervision and ordered to perform 60 hours of community work.

Chief Justice Sapolu