SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Stowers [2018] WSSC 45

Case name: 	Police v Stowers	
		
Citation: 	[2018] WSSC 45	
		
Decision date: 	10 April 2018	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v TAOA FARAIMO STOWERS male of Satapuala.	
		
Hearing date(s): 	19 February, 26 March 2018	
		
File number(s): 	S166/18	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	CHIEF JUSTICE 	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	Convicted and sentenced on the lead offence of cultivation of prohibited plants to 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.
-	Anytime that the accused has already spent in custody, is to be deducted.	
		
Representation: 	F Ioane for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords: 	aggravating features relating to the offending– cultivation of prohibited plants – mitigating features relating to the accused as offender – possession of narcotics – possession of seeds of a prohibited plant – possession of unregistered firearm – possession of unlawful ammunitions – pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity – starting point for sentence – sentence 	
		
Words and phrases:	was not recommended for further assessment as he is not suitable for the ADC	
		
Legislation cited:	Narcotics Act 1967, s.6 (1) (a), s.6 (1) (b), s.18; ss.7&18
Arms Ordinance 1960,s.9 	
		
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

TAOA FARAIMO FILO UPEGA STOWERS male of Satapuala.
Prosecution

Counsel:	
F Ioane for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	10 April 2018

S E N T E N C E
The charges
1. 	The accused Taoa Faraimo Filo Upega Stowers appears for sentence on the following charges:
(a)	one charge of cultivation of prohibited plants, namely, marijuana plants, contrary to s.6 (1) (a) of the Narcotics Act 1967, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment pursuant to s.18;
(b)	one charge of possession of narcotics, namely marijuana substances, contrary to s. 7 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment pursuant to s.18;
(c)	one charge of possession of the seeds of a prohibited plant, namely, marijuana seeds, contrary to s.6 (1) (b) of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment pursuant to s.18;
(d)	one charge of possession of an unregistered firearm, namely, an air gun serial number 0105273, contrary to s.9 of the Arms Ordinance 1960, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment; and 
(e)	 one charge of possession of unlawful ammunitions, namely, five ammunitions, contrary to s.12 of the Ordinance, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
2. 	To all charges, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  The two co-accused who have been jointly charged with the accused with cultivation of prohibited plants, possession of narcotics, and possession of seeds of a prohibited plant have pleaded not guilty to those charges.
The offending 
3. 	According to the prosecution summary of facts, on Thursday 11 January 2018 at around 6pm, the police arrived at Satapuala with a search warrant to search a land in relation to an on-going criminal investigation.  Whilst the police were conducting their search, they saw marijuana plants growing on a neighbouring land which belongs to the accused. The police then contacted the accused to come to where they were.  When the accused arrived, he was questioned by the police about the land where the marijuana plants were growing.  He admitted to the police that the land belongs to him and the marijuana plants also belong to him.
4. 	The police then conducted a search of the accused’s land and found 160 marijuana plants between 6 inches to 8 feet high, 867 marijuana branches weighing a total of 11.675 kilograms and between 3 to 11 inches long, 9,545 marijuana seeds, loose marijuana leaves weighing 21.4 kilograms, an unregistered air gun, and five unlawful ammunitions.
5. 	The accused was then arrested and brought to the Apia police station for further investigation.
The Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC)
6. 	After the accused pleaded guilty to the charges against him, he was referred to the ADC clinician for screening.  The clinician did not recommend him for further assessment as he is not suitable for the ADC.
The accused
7. 	As shown from the pre-sentence report, the accused is a 39 year old male of Satapuala.  He is married with eight children.  He had a low level of education having left school at Year 8.  He then worked at the Fletcher Construction Ltd as a plumber for one year before working for STEC at one of its Vaipapa properties for 8 months.
8. 	The accused admitted to the probation service that he started smoking marijuana in 1998 to give him energy when carrying out his chores.  In 2012 he started his marijuana plantation not only for his personal consumption but to earn a living for him and his family.  He said a 6 foot marijuana branch could sell for $500.  The money that he earned from his drug business was used to provide for his family.  He also owns a car.  As a result of this matter, the accused has been banished from his village of Satapuala.
9. 	The accused is a first offender.  His wife told the probation service that her husband is a humble, caring, and helpful individual.
The aggravating features relating to the offending 
10. 	The aggravating features relating to this offending are as follows:
(a)	the large and substantial quantity of marijuana plants the accused was cultivating; 
(b)	the large and substantial quantity of marijuana substances found in the accused’s possession; and
(c)	the marijuana was not only for the accused’s personal consumption but was for a commercial purpose.
The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender 
11. 	The only mitigating features relating to the accused as offender are the banishment that has been imposed on him by his village and his early guilty plea.  The fact that the accused is a first offender is neutral and given the circumstances of this case, I do not consider that the first offender status of the accused is a reflection of good character. It is therefore not a mitigating feature relating to the accused as offender.
Discussion 
12. 	Given the aggravating features relating to this offending, the prevalence of drug offending, and the need for personal and general deterrence in this type of case, I will take 7 years as the starting point for sentence as suggested by the prosecution.  I will deduct 9 months for the banishment which is a form penalty imposed on the accused by his village.  That leaves 6 years and 3 months.  I will deduct 25% or 1 year and 7 months for the early guilty plea.  That leaves 4 years and 8 months.
Result 
13. 	Applying the totality principle, the accused is convicted and sentenced on the lead offence of cultivation of prohibited plants to 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.
14. 	On the charge of possession of narcotics, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
15. 	On the charge of possession of the seeds of a prohibited plant, the accused is convicted and sentenced 3½ years imprisonment.
16. 	On the charge of possession of an unregistered firearm, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.
17. 	On the charge of possession of unlawful ammunitions, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. 
18. 	All sentences to be concurrent.  Anytime that the accused has already spent in custody, is to be deducted.
19. 	Stand down. 
CHIEF JUSTICE