PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2016 >> [2016] WSSC 124

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Police v Savusa [2016] WSSC 124 (4 July 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Savusa [2016] WSSC 124


Case name:
Police v Savusa


Citation:


Decision date:
04 July 2016


Parties:
POLICE and FILIPAINA SAVUSA male of Faleatiu (Accused)


Hearing date(s):



File number(s):



Jurisdiction:
CRIMINAL


Place of delivery:
Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren


On appeal from:


Order:
  • The accused is convicted of the 2 offences of possession of narcotics and sentenced to 2 years and ten months imprisonment.
  • Any time spent in custody is to be deducted


Representation:
O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
Accused un represented


Catchwords:
Narcotics - possession – marijuana – cultivates – regular user – hefty village penalty imposed – paid penalty – first offender – substantial quantity found – intended for commercial sale – custodial sentence


Words and phrases:


Legislation cited:
Narcotics Act 1967, ss. 6(b); 7; 18; 6(a)


Cases cited:
Police v Maposua [2010] WSSC 85
Police v Masame [2007] WSSC 92


Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA


HELD AT MULINUU


BETWEEN


P O L I C E
Prosecution


A N D


FILIPAINA SAVUSA, male of Faleatiu
Accused


Counsel:
O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
Accused un represented


Sentence: 4 July 2016


S E N T E N C E

The charge

  1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of knowingly being in possession b>seeds of prohiprohibited plants, sativa L (2876) and loose marijuana leaves, contrary to ss. 6(b), 7 and 18 of the Narcotics Ac7, which carries a maxi maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, and one charge of possession cultivation of 61 prohibited plants, namely sativa L, contrary to s6(a) of the Narcotics Act 1967. It also carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
  2. He entered guilty pleas to both charges on 6 June 2016.

The offending

  1. According to the Summary of facts accepted by the accused, on 13 May 2016, the Police executed a search warrant at the home of the accused. As a result of the Police search, Police found;
    1. 2876 marijuana seeds and loose marijuana leaves inside the house of the accused; and
    2. 61 marijuana plants behind the house of the accused.

The accused

  1. The accused is 39 years old. He is married with two children.
  2. He is a planter. His family depends on his plantation for daily income.
  3. He says he has been a consumer of marijuana for several years now and cultivates marijuana for his personal consumption.
  4. His wife remains supportive of him. His Reverend has provided a testimonial saying that the accused is a deacon in their church.
  5. The accused was penalised by the village and he paid a penalty of $4000 and 3 large fine mats. The village mayor confirmed this and conveys his support for the accused.
  6. The accused is a first offender.

Aggravating features of the offending

  1. The substantial quantity of marijuana is the first aggravating factor in this case. There were 61 marijuana plants and 2876 marijuana seeds.
  2. The second is that there is cultivation, and given the quantity, was clearly intended for commercial sale for financial gain, not just for personal consumption.

Mitigating factors

  1. Your previous good character is a mitigating factor.
  2. The penalty paid to the village is a mitigating factor.
  3. The accused guilty plea is also a mitigating factor.

Discussion

  1. I am mindful that the objective is deterrence, not punishment for offences of the same kind committed by others. I am also mindful that the sentence depends on the circumstances of each case.
  2. There has been a consistency in the imposition of harsher penalties on person engaged in commercial distribution and financial gain.(see Police v Maposua[2010] WSSC 85)
  3. This is in line with the judicial response to such offending. In Police v Masame [2007] WSSC 92, his CJ Sapolu said that for many years now, the attitude of the Court has been to impose custodial sentences in narcotics cases because of the high prevalence of this type of offending unless there are exceptional circumstances which would justify a non-custodial sentence.
  4. Having regard to the high maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment for possession of narcotics, the need for deterrence, and the aggravating features of his offending, a custodial sentence is an appropriate sentence.
  5. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify a non-custodial sentence. You have told the Court of your remorse saying that your wife and children will suffer. Today will be a difficult day for your wife and children. This is something you should have considered before offending.
  6. In sentencing I apply the totality principle. I will take 5 years imprisonment as a starting point for sentence. I will deduct 6 months for the penalty to the village. I will deduct 6 months for his previous good character and the testimonials from the Reverend and village mayor. I will then deduct 30% or 1 year and two months for his guilty plea.

Sentence

  1. The accused is convicted of the 2 offences of possession of narcotics and sentenced to 2 years and ten months imprisonment.
  2. Any time spent in custody is to be deducted.

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2016/124.html