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

Police v Fuifui [2005] WSSC 20 (8 November 2005)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

ETUALE FUIFUI,
male of Siusega and Safotu Savaii
Accused

Counsel: K Koria and P Chang for prosecution
I Ponifasio for accused

Sentence: 08 November 2005

SENTENCE

The accused is from the village of Siusega. He is twenty nine (29) years old. He is a first offender. He was employed but is now unemployed. He is married with three dependent children. It appears from the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service that his wife is engaged in paid employment.

The accused is charged under ss.7 and 18 (2) (a) of the Narcotics Act 1967 with possession of narcotics which carries a maximum penalty of seven (7) years imprisonment. To the charge he has entered a plea of guilty. As it appears from the summary of facts prepared by the prosecution, the narcotic substances with which the accused is being charged consists of 252 small plastic packets of dried marijuana leaves, two (2) joints of marijuana, one (1) small shopping bag full of marijuana leaves, one (1) pillow case containing twenty five branches of marijuana, and one newspaper wrapping of loose marijuana leaves and seeds. All these marijuana substances were found inside the accused’s house at Siusega during a police raid. It is a substantial quantity of marijuana substances.

Counsel for the accused in his brief but straight to the point plea in mitigation has raised all the matters that can be raised in the accused’s favour. Counsel submitted that the accused has a young family with three dependent children, and he is remorseful and regrets being involved in this matter. Counsel also referred to the accused’s plea of guilty to the charge and the fact that he has no previous conviction. He also told the Court that the marijuana substances with which the accused has been charged were from a single marijuana plant grown by the accused.

In the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service from interviews with the accused and his wife, the accused admitted to the probation service that the marijuana substances with which he has been charged belong to him. He also told the probation service that he bought a packet of marijuana from the market five months before and he planted a seed from that packet which grew into a five feet tall plant. In August this year, he cut the plant and made from it small packets of marijuana substances. His purpose was to sell the packets to earn money and for his own personal pleasure. It is not difficult to infer that most of the packets must have been intended for sale to earn money.

For many years now, marijuana related offences, namely, possession and cultivation, have been by far the most prevalent type of offence within the community apart perhaps from petty traffic offences. In consequence, it has been this Court’s sentencing policy to impose custodial sentences for marijuana related offences unless there are compelling reasons for departing from that policy. The purpose for that has been not only retribution but deterrence. The real culprits have been the suppliers. The accused in this case is in a real sense a supplier. He was in possession of a substantial quantity of marijuana substances, obtained from a marijuana plant he had himself grown, for a commercial purpose, namely, to sell those marijuana substances to earn money. These are aggravating circumstances to be taken into account.

In mitigation, I take into account what was said in the plea in mitigation by counsel for the accused including the accused’s plea of guilty and the fact that he is a first offender.

In weighing all these factors, the accused is convicted and sentenced to fifteen (15) months imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE