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

Police v Silipa [2025] WSDC 14 (16 October 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Silipa [2025] WSDC 14 (16 October 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D:

SOLOMONA SILIPA of Vaivase-uta
Accused

Counsel: Corporal Ken Komiti for Prosecution
Mr. Q. Sauaga for the Accused

Hearing: 26 & 27 March 2025

Decision: 16^th October 2025

RESERVED DECISION

INTRODUCTION

1. The prosecution brought a charge against the defendant for having in his possession utensils for the purpose of the commission of an offence under the Narcotics Act 1967 (the ‘Act’).

THE LAW

Possession of Utensil

2. Section 13(b) of the Act provides;
   • 13. Miscellaneous offences - A person who:
   • (a)...
   • (b) has in his or her possession a needle, syringe, pipe or other utensil for any such purpose of the commission of an offence; or
   • (c)...
   • commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine not exceeding 200 penalty units or both.
3. Section 7(b) of the Act further provides:
   • 7. Possession and use of narcotics – (1) No person shall:
   • (a) knowingly be in possession of, or attempt to obtain possession of, a narcotic, or;
   • (b) knowingly procure, consume, smoke or otherwise use, a narcotic; or
   • (c) attempt to supply or administer, or supply or administer, a narcotic to or on any other person, or otherwise deal in the narcotic in any other manner, – unless expressly exempted under subsection (2).
4. The law as to possession relating to the provisions of the Act is well settled^[1] and will not repeat it hear.

THE EVIDENCE

5. An intensive discussion of the facts is found in my preliminary decision relating to the legal challenge of a warrantless search^[2] and will not repeat that hear. However, after finding that the warrantless search was lawful, the issue now rests on the challenge to the elements of knowledge and control.
6. Mr Sauaga argues that the defendant had no knowledge of the items, including a glass pipe, found in his client’s vehicle. He argues that because his client had no knowledge of these items, it therefore follows that these items, including the glass pipe, did not belong to his client.
7. Mr Sauaga further submits that the logical explanation for these items being found in his client’s vehicle without his knowledge is attributed to either Chang or Teofilo or both. The defendant testified that he picked up Chang and Teofilo in front of the SSAB store at Vaivase. He denied in cross examination that they were his friends but had the time to stop and take them where they wanted to go. The defendant testified that it was Chang and Teofilo that caused him to be at the premises where the search was subsequently conducted because they wanted to attend Faamanu’s birthday celebration.
8. When the defendant’s vehicle was searched and the items located, he was asked what the items were. The only thing the defendant said was that he did not know. At this very moment, he testified that Chang was close to him and Teofilo was handcuffed together with Carlos and Roy. When questioned under caution at the Police headquarters, the defendant said he was surprised when the items were found but offered no explanation as to how the items came to be in his vehicle. The only thing he pleaded for was his release.

DISCUSSION

9. It is noted that much of the defendant’s testimony relating to his explanation as to how the glass pipe came to be in his vehicle is hearsay as it relies on the alleged conduct of Chang and Teofilo. Although Chang and Teofilo were confirmed to be present at Faamanu’s premises, how they got there, if not residents, is uncertain as they were not called by either the Prosecution or defense. Eventhough the defendant has asserted this evidence; it must be weighed according to the rules of hearsay evidence.
10. Mr Sauaga suggests to accept the evidence of the defendant that it was the defendant that transported them there. More importantly, Mr Sauaga suggests Teofilo should have been questioned as it was most likely Teofilo who put the items underneath the defendant’s car seat as he was sitting in the seat right behind the defendant whereas Chang was in the front passenger seat.
11. Upon their arrival, the defendant testified that Chang asked for him to wait as he (Chang) wanted the defendant to take him home. The defendant testified that Faamanu’s house is before his house at Vaivase-uta and Chang’s house is near to his house. The defendant testified under cross examination that Chang and Teofilo both had bags and they took it with them inside Faamanu’s house.
12. The defendant was taken to the Police headquarters and questioned under caution. He elected to make a statement and only said that he was shocked when the glass pipe was found and shown to him suggesting he had no knowledge of it. However, he offered no explanation as to how it got into his vehicle only that he pleaded to be released as his wife just had a miscarriage and she would be unable to look after their children.
13. It is not beyond the natural reaction of an innocent person that if such unknown items were found in their vehicle whether during a Police search or not that they would immediately cast their minds on who he/she last transported or who last used the vehicle. When the items were found and shown to the defendant, Chang and Teofilo were present and close by yet the defendant never cried foul against them. The defendant only denied he did not know what the items were.
14. At the Police headquarters, the defendant had the chance to explain, when he elected to make a statement, how the items that were not known to him came to be in his vehicle. The only thing he managed to say was that he was shocked the items were found but never suggested to Police that it must have been Chang or Teofilo or both who put the items there.
15. Furthermore, when the defendant gave evidence, he never testified that he believed the glass pipe was placed in his car by Chang or Teofilo or both. This was the opportune moment to do so if he was in fear of saying anything in the presence of Chang and Teofilo at Faamanu’s premises. Furthermore, there was no evidence that he raised the issue prior to the hearing with Police. Perhaps he may have mistakenly thought that just the mention of their names would suffice for the court to draw an inference in his favour. Not so.
16. Sergeant Su’e Mikaele testified that he did not believe the defendant came with Chang and Teofilo suggesting the defendant was there on his own accord. I too am sceptical about the defendant’s explanation given his behaviour when the glass pipe was found in that he did not immediately point out Chang and Teofilo as the culprits. They were present during the search of the defendant’s vehicle nor did he blame them during his caution statement.
17. I find the defendant’s evidence in relation to his explanation not believable given the circumstances stated above. On this issue, I am convinced that his behaviour and responses to questions suggest that he was caught in the act and his only defense was an outright denial. The only time he has attempted to explain the presence of the glass pipe is during the hearing by pushing the blame to Chang and/or Teofilo.
18. Whether he was at Faamanu’s premises of his own accord or came with Chang and Teofilo, I am convinced that is where he was heading. The glass pipe was his property along with the Q-tips which Sergeant Su’e testified was used to clean the glass pipe. The defendant quickly tried to stash it out of sight when the Police arrived.

CONCLUSION

19. I arrive at the conclusion that Prosecution have proven that the defendant had physical possession and control of the glass pipe and he is therefore found guilty of the offence charged.

JUDGE MATA’UTIA RAYMOND SCHUSTER

^[1] Police v Chan Chui [2007] WSSC (25 September 2007); Police v Posala [2016] WSSC 146 (27 June 2016); Attorney General v Fuaifale [2016] WSCA 3 (19 February 2016)
^[2] Police v Silipa [2025] WSDC 3 (22 May 2025)