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

Police v Taito [2009] WSSC 8 (9 February 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

LOMI TAITO, male of Salelologa and Lalovaea.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms T. Faumuina for the prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 9 February 2009

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case appears for sentence on a charge of possession of four joints of marijuana. It is clear from the defendant's record that he is a recidivist offender and that he is currently serving imprisonment terms for burglary and theft. He also has previous convictions for narcotics offending.

By decision dated 15 December 2008 the Court found the defendant guilty of the charge but the unusual factor in this case is that the offending occurred within the prison compound at Tafaigata. I am bound to observe that this is not the first time a narcotics matter has come before the court emanating from Tafaigata prison. The question must be asked as to what is going on at the prison. It is supposed to be a place where offenders are sent not a place where offending occurs and it is disconcerting that the type of offending that seems to be recurring from Tafaigata is drug offending one of the most serious and prevalent in our community. One would certainly hope that there is not a drug community alive and well in the prison thriving amongst the drug dealers and drug users that the court regularly sends there. Drug dealers in particular should be isolated from each other and indeed from other offenders whom they can convert and influence much in the same way that political assassins serving their time should be kept separate. It is perhaps timely for the police to consider grading prisoners into types and setting the level of security to be applied to each kind of prisoner.

The maximum penalty for possession of narcotics was amended by Parliament in 2006 so that possession of a "trafficable quantity of a narcotics" now carries a 14 year maximum penalty while possession of other quantities of narcotics carries a 7 year maximum and/or a fine of $5,000. These amendments show Parliaments obvious concern about drug offending in this community and Parliaments resolve to do something about it a desire that is shared by the judiciary as well.

A "trafficable quantity of narcotics" is defined under the legislation as an amount that the Head of State acting on the advice of Cabinet by order prescribes. It is not clear from the prosecution submission if such an order has been promulgated and if so whether the quantity of marijuana possessed by this defendant falls within or outside the scope of a trafficable quantity of narcotics. I assume the quantity possessed by the defendant is so small that whatever the case may be it falls outside the definition of a trafficable quantity of narcotics and therefore it attracts the lesser of the two penalties namely a 7 year maximum. If I am wrong in this assumption the prosecution can always seek to have the defendant re-sentenced but he will be dealt with today on this basis.

The prosecutions submission is not helpful in its citation of cases involving large quantities of narcotics. Here the defendant has been found in possession of only four joints. Considering all matters and considering the sentencing applied in similar cases which the prosecution can look up for themselves, the defendant in this case is convicted and sentenced to three (3) months imprisonment, cumulative to his current sentences.

JUSTICE NELSON