IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tuamoheloa [2026] WSSC 17 (2 April 2026)

Case name: 	Police v Tuamoheloa	
		
Citation: 	[2026] WSSC 17 	
		
Decision date: 	2nd April 2026	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v STEVEN TUAMOHELOA a.k.a KING AFA a.k.a TOE, male of Leone and American Samoa.	
		
Hearing date(s): 	25th March 2026	
		
File number(s): 	2026-00016	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Bail is denied. This matter will be further mentioned before me to Wednesday, 8th April at 12:00pm for prosecution to identify a hearing date within two months of today’s date. This matter can then be placed in the Call-over list on standby for that week for setting down for hearing.	
		
Representation: 	T. Roma for Prosecution	
	Q. Sauaga for Accused
	
Catchwords: 	bail, risk of offending, narcotics, marijuana.	
		
Words and phrases:	denial of bail, real and significant risk of the accused offending whilst on bail.	
		
Legislation cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 2016, ss. 99(a); 99(b); 99(d); 98(4)
Narcotics Act 1967	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Faualo [2024] WSSC 115;
Police v Foai [2018] WSSC 99;
Lam v Police [2018] WSSC 119;
Police v Pule [2017] WSSC 127;
Police v Barlow [2017] WSSC 103;
Police v Leleimalefaga [2017] WSSC 121;
Police v Ah Ching [2016] WSSC 31;
Police v Posala [2015] WSSC 92;
B v Police (No. 2) [2001] 1 NZLR 31.	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU.

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Informant

AND

STEVEN TUAMOHELOA a.k.a KING AFA a.k.a TOE, male of Leone and American Samoa.

Accused

Counsels:	T. Roma for Prosecution
		Q. Sauaga for Accused 
Bail Hearing:	25 March 2026
Ruling:	02 April 2026

BAIL RULING
1. 	The accused applies for bail. He is jointly charged with Lote Suilefaiga Tago Tuamoheloa with possession of (a) marijuana (one cigarette weighing 0.42 grams and loose marijuana leaves weighing 73.9 grams); (b) 10,321 marijuana seeds; (c) one portable scale, one iron pipe and one straw for the purpose of committing an offence against the Narcotics Act 1967; (d) an unlawful weapon, pistol .22 rifle, one 249 live round and one .22 hollow point bullets; and (e) twenty-six magnum live rounds, one .22 hollow point and one 12 gauge live round.
2. 	The accused has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He is presumed innocent of the charges until proven guilty according to law. He has no prior convictions. The accused however was granted bail for similar charges involving possession of marijuana, methamphetamine, utensil and seeds when arrested for this alleged offending. 
3. 	The application is opposed by prosecution on the grounds of:
(a) 	the accused being not bailable as of right;
(b) 	he may interfere with witnesses;
(c) 	the need to protect public safety;
(d) 	he may offend while on bail;
(e) 	the seriousness of the punishment to which he is liable, and the severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed;
(f) 	the nature of the offence; and
(g) 	the strength of the prosecution evidence and the probability of conviction.
Relevant Law:
Approach to Application for Bail:
4. 	The approach to bail by the Samoan Courts is now well established: see: Police v Faualo [2024] WSSC 115; Police v Foai [2018] WSSC 99; Lam v Police [2018] WSSC 119 (4 December 2018); Police v Pule [2017] WSSC 127; Police v Barlow [2017] WSSC 103; Police v Leleimalefaga [2017] WSSC 121; Police v Ah Ching [2016] WSSC 31; and Police v Posala [2015] WSSC 92. The accused is not bailable as of right but at the discretion of the Court ‘unless the Court is satisfied that there is just cause for the defendant to be remanded in custody.’ (section 98(4), Criminal Procedure Act 2016 (‘the Act’)).
5. 	The factors relevant to decision as to bail are set out in section 99 of the CPA. In Police v Barlow [2017] WSSC 107 (26 July 2017), Sapolu CJ articulated the approach to bail applications which he had earlier discussed in Police v Posala [2015] WSSC 92. Sapolu CJ stated in Barlow (supra):
“8. In Police v Posala [2015] WSSC 92, this Court, on the basis of New Zealand authorities, said that in dealing with a bail application, the real question to be considered is whether there is just cause for the continued detention of the accused in custody. In considering that question, the Court must take into account:

a)	whether there is a risk that the accused may fail to appear on the date to which he has been remanded; or

b)	whether there is a risk that the accused may interfere with witnesses or evidence; or

(c) whether there is a risk that the accused may offend while on bail; and

d)	any matter that would make it unjust to detain the accused.

[9]	As it appears from Police v Posala [2015] WSSC 92, paras 3, 17; Police v Ah Ching [2016] WSSC 31, para 12, it is not just any type of risk that will be enough to justify denying bail to the accused. The risk must be a ‘real and significant’ one and it is for the prosecution to establish that such a risk exists. Whether such a risk exists requires a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts.”
6. 	Section 98(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016 creates a presumption in favour of bail, unless there is just cause for detention. To determine whether there is just cause for detention requires the Court to consider whether there is a ‘real and significant’, not just fanciful or hypothetical risk of the accused failing to appear, interfering with witnesses or offending on bail. Relevant to that assessment are the other mandatory considerations referred to in s. 99 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016.
Discussion:
7. 	Prosecution advances a number of grounds to oppose the accused’s bail. I begin first with the risk of the accused failing to appear for trial on 2nd November 2026. I am not satisfied that the accused represents a real and significant risk of non-appearance. The more serious the charges and the heavier the potential penalties, the greater the incentive for an accused to abscond and fail to appear – particularly where the case against an accused is strong.  In assessing the risk, I accept that the charges the accused face are very serious. The sentencing approach of the Court to narcotics offending is also clear, lengthy imprisonment terms are imposed. However, to date, there is no evidence that the accused has failed to appear before the Court. Indeed, the Court file and evidence shows that he has appeared at all Court dates and signed in accordance with his bail conditions. As a result, I am not satisfied that he is a significant risk of non-appearance.
8. 	There is no history of the accused interfering with witnesses. The best that can be said of this ground for prosecution is Corporal Malaeimi Taefu’s statement in his affidavit dated 13th March 2026 that “investigations into this matter are ongoing. If the applicant is granted bail, there is a risk that he may interfere with potential witnesses or evidence the Police may later obtain.” While that risk may exist, it is simply speculation by Constable Taefu and falls well short of establishing the risk as real and significant. 
9. 	I now turn to the risk of offending on bail. The accused was granted bail on 25th May 2025 on similar charges involving narcotics and firearms as he now appears. His bail conditions included not to offend. He now appears charged with similar serious offending. Although trial documents have not been filed, the caution statement has been filed and is relied on by prosecution. The caution statement records:
	“F13.	E te manao e fa’amauina sau fa’amatalaga pe leai?
	 	T13.	Leai sau faamtalaga aua e leai se mea e tau nana ai fua, 		o a’u  maluaga sa ou  faatauina e fai ai la’u galuega.”
10. 	Although the accused has no prior convictions and is presumed innocent until proven guilty, this does not by itself lead to the inevitable conclusion that there does not exist a real and significant risk of offending. The caution statement is potentially highly persuasive evidence of the accused guilt, at least in respect of his possession of marijuana. Directed not to offend, the accused has been charged with similar serious offending, for which he has made an alleged admission, and which involves an allegedly substantial quantity of that narcotic. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is a real and significant risk of the accused offending whilst on bail. 
11. 	Having reached this conclusion, I am also not satisfied that bail conditions can sufficiently mitigate the risk of offending by the accused. While the application for bail will be denied at this juncture, I am deeply concerned with the risk of the accused remaining in custody for a prolonged period. He has been in custody since about 31st December 2025, a period of three months. The trial for this matter is not until 2nd November, 7 months time. This means he will have been in custody for some 10 months or so by the time of his trial. Prosecution also too often fail to proceed. Such prolonged detention and delay may be unfair and inconsistent with the accused’s presumption of innocence. As such, prosecution is to identify an existing prosecution fixture within the next two months that can be vacated for this matter to instead be listed for hearing. In my view, while I am satisfied that just cause exists for the continued detention of the accused for a further period, beyond that two months, delay will weigh against continued just cause for the denial of bail. 
Result:
12. 	Bail is denied. This matter will be further mentioned before me to Wednesday, 8th April at 12:30pm for prosecution to identify a hearing date within two months of today’s date. This matter can then be placed in the Call-over list on standby for that week for setting down for hearing.

JUSTICE CLARKE