Drugs offender found guilty of charges [1]
Friday, May 30, 2025 - 19:21
By Linny Folau
Epuefi Laimani was found guilty of possession of 13.27 grams of methamphetamine in Sopu after being caught by police officers, who received information that he was selling illicit drugs in the area.
Justice Paul Garlick in a 30 page judgment on 12 May at the Supreme Court in Nuku'alofa, found the defendant guilty of three counts that also included possession of 1.87 grams of cannabis and drugs utensils. He was found not guilty on another count of possessing 0.42 grams of cannabis, due to no evidence as submitted by the defence counsel, during the trial in May.
The judge stated there was no issue of fact between the parties about the majority of the evidence as there was agreement in relation to nearly all of the primary factual evidence. The only dispute as to the prosecution’s evidence was in relation to the words spoken by the defendant when taken to his residence, when the cannabis was discovered by the police concealed on the side of a sofa in the living room, which he dealt with in his judgment.
The judge found the evidence of all of the police officers as credible, reliable and accurate. As he had observed, the evidence of these witnesses called by the Crown was not severely criticised, nor disputed, in cross-examination by defence counsel, except to the extent that counsel for the defendant put to about that the search of the car in Sopu.
Police Officer Vi, in charge of the Drugs Unit, gave evidence that on18 May 2023, at about 2:00pm, he received reliable information that a person was selling drugs in Sopu. He identified the person as the defendant.
He and other officers drove to the area where they noticed a grey vehicle parked at the end of Sopu, on the right side. He identified the vehicle as the vehicle that the defendant used. He could see the defendant was standing outside this vehicle. He identified the locations in a photograph in the trial booklet. He then contacted Sgt Fifita and the other officers for them to come to the area to see if they could stop what was going to happen.
He was involved in detaining the defendant and directed Sgt Fifita to continue the work, whilst he observed what was going on. When they were searching the vehicle, he remembered seeing the defendant on the front passenger side of the vehicle, and he looked around the area whilethey conducted the search.
Officer Vi also remembered seeing the defendant when he was next to the Toa tree. That is when he noticed the little shoe. There was a plastic bag inside the shoe and inside it were some packs. He didn't touch it but he informed Sgt Fifita for them to come and look at it when they were done. He also confirmed that there was a police dog present, and it picked up the scent of the plastic bag in the shoe. When he was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant, he stated that he didn't obtain a search warrant because of the nature of the information that he had received. Because the nature of the work was a drug case, they needed to act quickly.
“I accept this evidence and his explanation completely. He said that he acted under sections 12 and 13 of the Illicit Drugs Act,” the judge stated.
He stated that the regime provided for by sections 12 and 13 was clearly expressed and not ambiguous as it gives a police officer the power to search a vehicle or a person if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that there is in or on any vehicle or craft for illicit drugs.
It was clear that the police officers had reasonable grounds to suspect that there were illicit drugs in the defendant's car. Accordingly, he found that the search of the defendant's vehicle and him were lawfully carried out under the Act.
"As to the search of the defendant's residence, the judge also accepted the submission that the powers provided by sections 12 and 13 did not extend to a search of premises. However, whatever the view of the police officers as to which section of the Act they were searching under the fact remained that the officers did, in my view, have reasonable grounds to suspect that it was necessary to search the premises without a warrant to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of anything.
“Accordingly, I find that the search of the defendant's premises was lawfully executed under of the Act."
The judge fount that the defendant was in possesion of the methamphetamine that was concelaed in the shoe left by the Toa tree.
The accused was also found guilty on the other two charges.
The defendant is expected to be sentenced in June.