Drugs offender jailed after appeal dismissed [1]
Thursday, January 25, 2024 - 08:08
By Linny Folau
Samiu Mafi was ordered to serve a sentence of one-year imprisonment for drugs offences imposed by the Magistrates Court, after his appeal was dismissed when he failed to demonstrate that the ruling was wrong.
This was an appeal from a decision of Senior Magistrate Peni Ma'u at the lower court where he convicted the appellant on possession of 0.09 grams of methamphetamine and 0.09 grams of cannabis in a hearing last year.
Acting Justice Langi in a ruling at the Supreme Court stated the appellant, who was unrepresented, chose to run his appeal on his own advancing numerous grounds of appeal and “after careful consideration it was obvious that some of the grounds were repetitive and others otiose.”
In a summary of the appellant's grounds of appeal were: “a. dissatisfaction with the work carried out by the Police in searching the residence at Haveluloto and subsequently arresting and charging him and others; b. Inconsistency in the Police statements and their brief of evidence; c. it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of illicit drugs due to the procedure used by the Police and the conviction was only because of Police powers; d. the procedure used in analyzing exhibits 4 & 7; e. that during the trial the Learned Magistrate had stated "I mean, if you give sworn evidence, the Prosecution will cross examine you" and that meant that I should not give sworn evidence.”
Lastly that the residence in Havelu where they were arrested belongs to Nisifolo Pisima'ake. Mr. Pisima'ake had informed the police and had arranged for the appellant to be arrested;
The Acting Justice stated there is a general right of appeal from a judgement of the Magistrates Court in both civil and criminal matters under section 74 (1) Magistrates Courts Act.
The judge said the appellant was challenging the Magistrate's findings of fact and the procedure in the lower court, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses.
“There was little or no cross-examination recorded in the transcript of the witness contesting this evidence. It is fundamental that where issues of fact are in dispute that counsel challenge a witness so that the witness may respond. If counsel does not then the evidence of the witness may be accepted as reliable,” she said.
“In addition, in regards to the first ground of appeal, the Magistrate had referred to this issue in paragraphs 14- 24 of his judgement. The appellant had also filed a letter dated 16 November 2022 also referring to dissatisfaction with the work carried out by Police. These submissions were considered by the Magistrate but he preferred the evidence of the Crown and ruled that the search was lawful. The second ground of appeal was also not put by the appellant to the witnesses.
“I agree with the Crown's submission that nothing in this ground of appeal demonstrates any error in law or in fact in the Learned Magistrate's ruling.
"The third ground of appeal again has no merit as the Magistrate had covered in his judgment the evidence and the reasons why he found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
“I do not accept the appellants fourth ground of appeal as he had every opportunity to put this to the Magistrate but failed to do so. Lastly, I do not accept the reasoning put forward by the appellant in his last ground of appeal, where he alleges that the Magistrate had warned him against giving evidence.
He claims that the word; if you give sworn evidence, the Prosecution will cross examine you meant for him to not give evidence.
"The appellant is not a young child and is no stranger to the courts to now claim he was intimidated by what the Magistrate said. He is misguided in his interpretation of what the Magistrate's words meant.”
She also stated that the appellant was unrepresented by counsel of his own choice. However, the transcript clearly showed that because of this, the Magistrate had assisted the appellant in explaining the procedures to him and instructing him on how to draft his closing submissions.
Fail
The judge said that the Magistrate was in the best position to judge matters of fact and the higher court should only interfere with findings of a trial court on matters of fact only in extreme and exceptional cases.
"In light of the above, the appellant has failed to demonstrate, by a considerable margin, that the findings of the Magistrate were plainly wrong and there was therefore no reason for this court to interfere with them."
The appeal was then dismissed. There was no appeal on the sentence passed by the Learned Magistrate and the appellant was ordered to immediately serve the sentence given by the Magistrate in the lower court, which is 12-months imprisonment.