Drug offender gets jail time reduced [1]
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 - 19:20
Bruno Latu (27) got his three-year imprisonment sentence reduced for possession of 0.17 gram of methamphetamine seized at Havelu in 2020.
The Appeal Court allowed his appeal last month.
On 20 April 2021, Latu pleaded guilty to possession of 0.17 gram of methamphetamine. He was then sentenced by Justice Niu to three-years' imprisonment, with the final year suspended for three-years, on conditions on 15 June 2021.
Latu appealed against his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and inconsistent with other sentences imposed by the Supreme Court, for similar offending.
The offending was on 25 October 2020, when this appellant and co-accused, Fetokai Manioke were parked in the appellant's vehicle near a planation in Havelu.
When a police vehicle stopped, the appellant started his engine to drive off. As he did, he threw out a test tube, later found to contain methamphetamines. When Police searched the vehicle, they found other drug related paraphernalia including straws, 15 empty packs, and a weighing scale.
They also found $1,020 on Fetokai Manioke. When questioned, the appellant remained silent.
The Appeal Court had no hesitation in agreeing with both parties that the sentence was excessive.
"While the judge was fully entitled to take into account the presence of the other drug related paraphernalia found in the appellant's vehicle as a circumstance of aggravation or even evidence of possession for the purpose of supply, there was no sound basis for comparing the offending here with that in Puloka."
In addition, the judge's reference to the 2020 amendments to the Act to illustrate the seriousness of offences involving methamphetamines in Tonga was benign in and of itself.
"However, his Honour erred when he referred to the new maximum penalty for possession of Class A drugs as including life imprisonment. Relevantly, the new maximum term of imprisonment for quantities of less than one gram is three-years. To the extent that the reference influenced his Honour's approach to the task here, it led him into error."
The Appeal Court then ruled that in circumstances where the amount of the drug in question is the primary measure by which different sentences are imposed and ranges for similar offending are established, the resulting sentence here of three-years imprisonment for 0.17 grams of methamphetamines was well outside the available range and therefore manifestly excessive.
"Despite the relatively small amount of drugs on this occasion, we consider that the appellant's admission to being a drug dealer, which was consistent with the other items found in his vehicle at the time of this offence, and the need to therefore protect the community, weighs against any suspension of the sentence."
The appeal was allowed.
In substitution, the appellant was sentenced to nine-months' imprisonment.