IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Ah Mann [2025] WSSC 27 (30 April 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Ah Mann	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 27	
		
Decision date: 	30 April 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v SOPHIA IKENASIO AH MANN, female of Vaivase-uta & Lufilfui (Accused)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	Sentence Hearing: 11 April 2025	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	You are accordingly convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment less remand in custody.	
		
Representation: 	MT Fesili for Prosecution
A Matalasi-Fata for Accused	
		
Catchwords: 	Possession of methamphetamine 	
		
Words and phrases:	“attempted to smuggle narcotics into prison” – “discharge without conviction application dismissed” 	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Police v Afamasaga [2018] WSSC 118;
Police v Fialelei [2024] WSSC 119;
Police v Leota [2024] WSSC 28;
Police v Lesu [2024] WSSC 137
Police v Logovii [2024] WSSC 13;
Police v Roache [2021] WSSC 16;
Police v Timblique [2024] WSSC 88;
R v Napier [2001] BCL 116.	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D:

SOPHIA IKENASIO AH MANN, female of Vaivase-uta and Lufilufi.

Accused

Counsel:		MT Fesili for Prosecution
A Matalasi-Fata for Accused

Sentence Hearing:	11 April 2024
Decision:		30 April 2024 

RESERVED SENTENCE

1. 	The accused Sophia Ikenasio Ah Mann appears for sentence on two charges of possession of methamphetamine.
The Offending:
2. 	Sophia has accepted the Summary of Facts dated 7th February 2025. On the 23rd November last year, Sophia went to visit her husband at the Tanumalala Prison taking with her some goods. As part of the mandatory conditions of the Prison, a search was carried out of the goods together with a body search of Sophia. During that body search, a Corrections Officer found in the leg of Sophia’s pants a white plaster. The white plaster was opened and found were two zip lock bags. In one zip lock bag was a block like a rock and the other containing white particles like salt. The items were assumed to be methamphetamine and police were then contacted.
3. 	When police arrived, a search of Sophia’s car was also carried out. A white tissue containing another two zip lock bags were located. These zip lock bags contained tiny white salt like particles. The items found in Sophia’s pants leg and car were confirmed to be methamphetamine, total weight 0.74 grams. 
The Accused:
4. 	Sophia is a 23 year old nurse. According to her Pre-Sentence Report, she grew up in Vailima and is the eldest of 5 children. Her father was a taxi driver and mother employed at Samoa Lotto. She completed school to year 13 and went on to study nursing at the National University of Samoa. In 2022, she became a registered nurse. She is married with 2 children aged 3 and 1. Her husband, who Sophia was going to visit at Tanumalala, describes her as a caring mother, quiet and non-confrontational.
Aggravating factors:
5. 	The aggravating features of Sophia’s offending are (a) the prevalence of narcotics offending in Samoa; (b) the clearly premeditated and calculated nature of her offending; and (c) she attempted to smuggle Class A narcotics into the prison concealed in her pants.
Mitigating Factors:
6. 	The mitigation features personal to Sophia are her prior good character, remorse, personal circumstances and early guilty plea.
Application For Discharge Without Conviction:
7. 	Sophia has applied for a discharge without conviction. In order to determine her application for a discharge without conviction, I must assess (i) the gravity of her offending; (ii) the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction on her; and (iii) whether the consequences of a conviction are out of all proportion to the gravity of her offending.
8. 	Any offence involving methamphetamine in Samoa is a serious offence. The maximum penalty for possession of methamphetamine is up to life imprisonment. This reflects the will of Parliament and the seriousness by which Parliament view the possession of methamphetamine in this country. The serious nature of this type of offending is also reflected in the sentences imposed by the courts over a number of years now. Almost all judges of the Supreme Court have made that point time and again that this offending is serious.
9. 	In Sophia’s case, not only was she in possession of methamphetamine but she concealed it in her pants leg and attempted to smuggle it to her husband in the prison where, as Sophia told the Probation Service, was remanded in custody for alleged narcotics offending. It is well recognized that not only do Samoa’s Courts impose deterrent sentences when it comes to ‘aisa’, it is also the case that deterrent sentences are imposed for those who attempt to smuggle drugs into prisons. This is for good reason, which I elaborate on further below referring to R v Napier [2001] BCL 116. In my assessment, Sophia’s offending is very serious, though not at the highest end of seriousness compared to other types of methamphetamine offending.
10. 	I accept that the consequences of a conviction against Sophia will be significant. She was asked to resign and resigned from the Ministry of Health. She will lose her license to practice as a nurse. A conviction will jeopardize her ability to secure future nursing or mid-wifery related employment or indeed, any future course of study in this field.
11. 	While the consequences of a conviction on Sophia will be significant, these are in no way out of all proportion to the seriousness of her offending. They are a natural and expected consequences for health practitioners who commit serious drug offending of this nature. Health practitioners such as Sophia are entrusted both with access to and the administration of drugs through the health system. Her actions clearly show such trust in her is completely misplaced. In her case, not only did she possess the methamphetamine, she then deliberately concealed it in a calculated way in a foolish effort to take it into the prison. Incredibly, it was so it could be given to her husband who himself had been remanded in custody for alleged narcotics offending. Her conduct was brazen, foolish and tested the Prison security protocols; risked the wellbeing and safety of prisoners and those in custody who could then have accessed the drugs; and would have contributed to proliferation of these drugs in a prison system where many drug offenders are incarcerated. The application for a discharge without conviction is dismissed.
Discussion:
12. 	Where a person smuggles or attempts to smuggle drugs into a prison, deterrence is a key feature of sentencing. In R v Napia [2001] BCL 116, the New Zealand Court of Appeal stated:
	“[12] Deterrence is an important aspect of sentencing in relation to the smuggling or attempted smuggling of drugs into prisons. In Callard this court referred to three principal concerns of the prison authorities in respect of illicit drug use or dealings by inmates. First, there is a difficulty in managing prisoners indulging in drug taking with consequential implications for security and risks of harm. Second, any illicit market within the prison tended to be dominated by stronger inmates and stand-over tactics were common. Third, the availability of drugs interfered with management for rehabilitation. The consequences of smuggling drugs into prisons warrant a policy of deterrence and having regard to the deliberate premeditated nature of such offending deterrent policies can be expected to be generally effective…”
13. 	In sentencing you Sophia, I do so with the purpose of denouncing your conduct and to deter you and others from committing this same or a similar offence. To do otherwise would only encourage others visitors to the Prison to smuggle or attempt to smuggle methamphetamine and other drugs into the prison contributing to the serious problems referred to in R v Napia. I would add to what is stated in Napia that smuggling and attempting to smuggle drugs into the Prisons will also only add to the cost and additional resources that would then need to be deployed by the Prisons Service to detect and intercept drugs from entering the prison system.
14. 	Prosecution seeks a 2 year sentence start point. Your counsel seeks a non-custodial sentence and refers me to Police v Timblique [2024] WSSC 88, Police v Afamasaga [2018] WSSC 118 and Police v Leota [2024] WSSC 28. While I accept that non-custodial sentences have been handed down for methamphetamine offending in a very limited number of cases, these are very much the exception. In Police v Leota, the circumstances was entirely different to your case Sophia and there, Nelson J departed from the usual sentencing practices of the Court and did what he described to the defendant as to “take a chance with you”. In Police v Timblique, the defendant was “smuggling these (the methamphetamine) out as opposed to importation” and prosecution and defence counsel submitted a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, accepted by Nelson J. In Police v Afamasaga, Nelson J placed weight on the personal use of the methamphetamine, its quantity and his time in custody to arrive at a non-custodial sentence.
15. 	In your case Sophia, a clear message must be sent to all who might think of smuggling drugs into any prison facility, but particularly the hard drugs such as methamphetamine, that if you do so and are caught, you will face a stern sentence – and will in almost all likelihood become an inmate of that very facility. These are for the reasons set out in R v Napier but equally importantly, to not to add to the many challenges faced by the Prisons Services in keeping Tanumalala Prison safe and drug free within the shoestring budget available to it.
16. 	I accept the recommendation by prosecution of a two-year sentence start point. From that start point, I deduct 3 months (12.5%) for your prior good character, 4 months for your personal circumstances and remorse (16.6%) and from the balance, 5 months for your early guilty plea leaving an end sentence of 12 months imprisonment.	
Result:
17. 	You are accordingly convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment less remand in custody.
JUSTICE CLARKE