Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Tauaanae [2025] WSSC 13 (21 March 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tauaanae [2025] WSSC 13 (21 March 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

FATUATIA SAUMALU TAUAANAE, male of Moamoa, Vaitele Uta, Aopo and Satoalepai Savaii.

Defendant

Counsel: F.Koria for prosecution
L. Faasii for the defendant

Sentence: 21 March 2025

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to two (2) charges. Firstly that at Moamoa on 24 June 2023 he did knowingly have in his possession narcotics namely one small ziplock plastic bag containing methamphetamine weighing at 1.10 grams. The second is that at Moamoa on 24 June 2023 he was also found in possession of utensils namely one (1) clear glass pipe and one (1) portable electronic scale for the purposes of committing an offence against the Narcotics Act 1967.
2. The unchallenged Police summary of facts say he is a 43 year old male of Moamoa, Vaitele-Uta, Aopo and Sato’alepai married with four (4) children. On 24 June 2023 at about 10:00 am in the morning the police acting on information conducted a raid pursuant to a Search Warrant at the defendants residence at Moamoa. On arrival the Police explained the Search Warrant and the purpose of the search to the defendant who owns the premises and conducted a search.
3. The search uncovered the small ziplock plastic bag containing 1.10 grams of methamphetamine, the clear glass pipe and the portable electronic scale. The defendant was arrested and taken to the Police Station where he was cautioned and interviewed.
4. Initially he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him but on trial day vacated that plea and pleaded guilty to all the charges.
5. The maximum penalty by law for possession of methamphetamine is life imprisonment. It is clearly a serious offending, and the courts attitude to sentencing offenders who use or deal with narcotic substances such as methamphetamine is by now well publicized and documented. They are usefully summarized by Roma, J in Police v Palu [2023] WSSC 35 wherein is contained the following quote from the well-known New Zealand authority of R v Fatu [2005] NZCA 278:
   • “Methamphetamine abuse can fairly be characterised as the most serious drug problem the country faces at present. The various ways in which the drug threatens the community are well-known. Methamphetamine is a particularly destructive drug for users; it is highly addictive with profound mental and physical side-effects. It induces aggressive and irrational behaviour, and is regularly responsible for other offending involving extreme violence, a phenomenon not commonly associated with other drugs. It has created a thriving industry, in which organised crime is heavily involved at all levels. The manufacturing process is particularly dangerous. It is submitted, with respect, that if it is appropriate to draw any distinction between Class A drugs, methamphetamine can fairly lay claim to a place in the most serious category.”
6. Everyone must know by now that you run a high risk of imprisonment if you involve yourself in illicit narcotics in particular methamphetamine. Ice is becoming the latest scourge being inflicted upon us and also well documented are the risks it poses to a persons health, well-being and to the reputation of families immediate and extended.
7. This case is another tragic example of a well-educated man with family responsibilities destroyed by involvement in narcotics. Something that the courts sadly see too many times in too many families. No question an imprisonment term is required for this matter, the real issue is the length. This is dependent on whether the court treats the defendants possession as being for the purposes of commercial distribution that is whether the defendant is to be treated as a dealer or supplier of methamphetamine. In which case a significantly higher start point for sentence would be required in accordance with established case law. Or whether the defendant should be treated as having possession of the ice for personal use only.
8. Presence of a portable electronic scale tends towards possession for the purposes of sale or distribution. But there are no other indicators in the Police Summary of Facts supporting that. And it appears the Police have not presented this as a case against a dealer. I am therefore left in some reasonable doubt as to which category the defendants offending properly belongs. Because this is a sentencing matter I will err on the side of caution, I will treat the defendants offending as being possession for the purposes of personal consumption only. But if I am wrong in that regard Fatu, you now have a previous conviction for drug offending and any future appearance on drug charges would guarantee you a long and uncomfortable stay at Tanumalala Prison.
9. I will treat you today as being someone who is brought before the court on possession of ice for your own use. Still it is a serious offence but taking into account the submissions of both the Police and your lawyer and having due regard to the quantity of methamphetamine involved in your offending, sentence for possession of methamphetamine will start at 2 years in prison. Your counsel has in fact argued for a lesser start point paying due regard to Police v Fialelei [2024] WSSC 122 but I consider that decision to be one limited to its own facts and out of step with many other decisions establishing the relevance of previous convictions for narcotics offending.
10. The start point is 2 years in prison but you are entitled to certain deductions from the start point to reflect mitigating factors. The first deduction is for your clean record because you are a first offender and because of your background of service to your aiga and community as canvassed in the pre-sentence report. Although it is not an unblemished record, I will still give you full credit of 6 months as per normal.
11. Second deduction is for the penalty of banishment that has been imposed on you by the village council of Vaitoomuli, Savaii where your wife and youngest son reside. That is a significant punishment because it interferes with your ability to interact with part of your family. The law requires that the court recognise traditional penalties imposed by village councils for criminal offending I will deduct 3 months for that because it is not a full banishment from your own village but it is a banishment that affects you.
12. The final deduction is for your guilty plea. Normally an early guilty plea receives a deduction of twenty-five percent (25%) from the balance of sentence. But your guilty plea was only entered on trial day so I can only give you a deduction of 3 months for that.
13. There are no other deductions you qualify for Fatu, total deductions of 12 months from the start point of 2 years, leaves 12 months imprisonment. For possession of methamphetamine you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison. But your remand in custody time awaiting disposal of this case to be deducted from that.
14. The court further directs that while you are serving your term you undergo the Salvation Army Drug Rehabilitation Program. I hope that helps you in the future but at the end of the day it is always your call and your choice when you get out of prison. It is the hope of the court that a lesson has been well learnt but as I said when you are released from prison your life is in your own hands. I have already told you what will happen if you come back.
15. On the second and lesser charge of possession of the pipe and the electronic scale you will be convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison, concurrent term
16. O lona uiga o le aofai o le taimi e te nofo sala ai i le toese e 12 masina, ae tatau ona toese mai le taimi lea sa e nofo taofia ai e faatalitali le faaiuga o le faamasinoga.
    

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON