A 44-year-old man who was sentenced to 16-months imprisonment for possession of illicit drugs, including 2.21 grams of methamphatamine, got his sentence fully suspended. He was a police informant who assisted in the seizure of other illicit drugs.

Referred to as “PMP” (pseudonym) the defendant's name was suppressed by the Supreme Court as protection.

Crown confirmed that the defendant had acted as a police informant and as a result of his assistance, 11 police operations seized methamphetamines totalling 59.68 grams, 543 grams of cannabis and $2,803 in cash. 

Lord Chief Justice Whitten QC sentenced the defendant earlier this month, after, he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of 2.12 grams of methamphetamine and 0.91 grams of cannabis seized at Pili on March 29, 2019.

Police informant 

The Chief Justice said he directly addressed the defendant's claims through a pre-sentence report that he agreed to become, and had acted as, a police informant since his arrest on these charges, and that his assistance had led to the arrest of a significant number of other alleged drug offenders. 

He said the Crown's submissions were “conspicuously silent on this issue”. 

The Chief Justice then directed enquiries to ascertain whether the Crown agreed with the description of the defendant's undertaking as a police informant, and he received word that it did. 

“However, that belated concession gives rise to a far more fundamental question, namely, whether, as the pre-sentence report records, the police also agreed not to prosecute the defendant on these charges if he agreed to be an informant?” the Lord Chief Justice said.

During oral submissions, the Director of Public Prosecutions , Semisi Lutui, clarified that the Crown agreed that the defendant had acted as a police informant and that as a result of his assistance, 11 operations had ensued which had netted seizures of methamphetamines totalling 59.68 grams, 543 grams of cannabis and $2,803 in cash, he said.

“However, Mr Lutui denied that there was any agreement for immunity for prosecution in return for the defendant's assistance. He said that the defendant approached him after his committal on the instant charges and asked for assistance.”

Mr Lutui made enquiries of the Commissioner of Police who informed him that police do not offer immunity to offenders as that is a matter solely for the discretion of the Attorney General. 

"Therefore, the agreement, he said, was that in return for the defendant's assistance, the Crown would bring that assistance to the Court's attention on any sentence as a matter in mitigation.

“And that those matters were not articulated in the Crown's written submissions on sentence was due to the Director of Public Prosecution's office still working on appropriate procedures for presenting such information to the Court in cases such as the present.
"

Meanwhile, defence counsel confirmed that his client had hoped that police may not charge him if he assisted them, but that there was no agreement for immunity.

Cooperation

The Chief Justice said for the defendant's far greater cooperation with the authorities in relation to other illicit drugs investigations, he would have been minded to only suspend eight-months of the 16-months sentence, thereby requiring him to serve eight-months. 

"I do not consider that full suspension, even for a first detected drug conviction, given the insidious nature of methamphetamine and its effect on the community, the weight and commercial element of the offending, would strike the right balance between an opportunity for rehabilitation on the one hand, and the sentencing objectives of punishment, denunciation, protection of the community and deterrence, on the other.

“However, in light of the Crown's concession as to the extent of the defendant's assistance, I took into account the not insignificant fact that having informed on other drug dealers and users, the defendant is very likely to be at grave risk of harm and retribution if sent to prison, well beyond the usual vicissitudes of incarceration. 

“In that event, his experience would likely be far more onerous than had he not assisted police in the way he has,” said the Chief Justice.

Under all these circumstances, he was satisfied that it was appropriate, in this case to fully suspend the sentence on conditions. 

The defendant was also advised that he if did not take this opportunity for rehabilitation or he failed to comply with the conditions, he would likely be required to serve the full 16-months imprisonment and without any repeated consideration for his role as a police informant. 

The Crown said the methamphetamines in this case had already been destroyed. The cannabis was ordered to be destroyed. 

In addition, $915 cash seized upon the defendant's arrest was forfeited to the Crown. 

“To accord with the anonymity requirements of s.30 of the Act, and the public policy or interest in protection of police informants, the identity of the defendant and his evidence in this proceeding shall not be published,” ordered Lord Chief Justice Whitten.