Public Prosecutor v Bong
SENTENCE
Introduction
1. The Defendant comes before this Court today to be sentenced in relation to his conviction for a count of unlawful possession of cannabis contrary to section 2 (62) of the Dangerous Drugs Act [Cap 12].
2. He entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned on the 19th May 2026, accepted the facts that were outlined by the prosecution and was duly convicted.
Facts
3. Following the receipt of information about disorderly behaviour and the consumption of alcohol by several youths at Fresh Wota 2 on the 25th December 2021, the police mounted a patrol of the area.
4. They located and confronted several young men, amongst them was Taho Bong. The police searched the Defendant and found in his possession substance they believed to be cannabis.
5. The substance was seized and subsequently subjected to a forensic presumptive test. The result was that it tested positive for cannabis. It weighed 79.89 grams.
6. The Defendant was interviewed under caution by the police on the 27th December 2026. He told them that he would only speak in Court.
Statutory Maximum Sentence
7. A conviction for the offence of unlawful possession of cannabis attracts a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment or a fine of 100 million vatus, or both such a fine and imprisonment.
Aggravating Factors
8. The following circumstances constitute the aggravating factors in the present case:
a) The amount of cannabis that was taken from the offender when he was searched was fairly large;
b) Although there is no clear evidence connecting the two events, the evidence of its presence at the place of the offending may suggest that its use could have contributed also to the unruly behaviour of the young men, and not alcohol alone. It illustrates the potential effect of drug abuse;
c) Where there is some suggestion that the Defendant admitted having acquired the substance from another person who sold it to him, strongly conveys the idea that purchasing an illicit substance of this kind fuels and encourages the commission of other related offences like selling cannabis and possession for the purpose of sale. A market can only be sustained if there is an opportunity to make a sale.
Sentencing purpose and Guideline
9. There are several principles that guide the sentence to be imposed on the Defendant. They include the proposition that the Defendant must be held accountable and must take responsibility for his action. Additionally, the Defendant’s action is the kind that is denounced by society, and that similar future acts by the Defendant and others must be deterred.
10. This Court however recognises that in appropriate cases, these principles may have to be balanced with the need to rehabilitate offenders.
11. The approach taken in the process of determining the appropriate sentence in this case is guided by the observations of the Court of Appeal in its decision in the case Jimmy Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40.
Starting Point
12. In assessing the appropriate starting point, I have taken into account the statutory maximum sentence, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending.
13. I have considered the submissions made by counsels, as well as the case authorities they referred to for the Court’s consideration. I have also taken into account the statutory observations made by the Court of Appeal in its decisions in the cases Public Prosecutor v Naio [1998] VUCA 1 and Public Prosecutor v Tukoro [1999] that highlight the importance of recognising how the circumstances in each case differ from the other, and how sentences ought to reflect these differences. The determination of an appropriate starting point begins with such assessment. The process is not primarily a mechanical comparison of prior decisions.
14. The facts in the case Public Prosecution v Joshua Matahu Mansi [2019] VUSC 158 that the prosecuting counsel alluded to is similar to the circumstances in the present case. It also involved the Defendant behaving in an unruly manner. Whilst there is some difference in the amount of cannabis that was found in the possession of the Defendant, the starting point of 20 months imprisonment in that case provides helpful guidance. In the other case that counsel referred to, the starting point was set at 12 months imprisonment. That was also the starting point she recommended.
15. The Defence counsel referred to the observations of the Court of Appeal made in its decision in Columbus Wetul v Public Prosecutor, criminal Appeal No.04 of 2013 as a guideline judgment. It must be noted that the guidance given in that case was primarily intended to cover sentencing in cases involving the cultivation of cannabis. Some caution must therefore be exercised when seeking to apply the guideline to cases of possession. The nature of the offences, the particular circumstances of the offending and the potential aggravating features distinguish the two offences. The Wetul decision cannot therefore be cited as directly applying to cases of possession, but perhaps as a source of guidance only to the assessment of degrees of seriousness.
16. Counsel refers to two additional cases involving different circumstances in which the weights of the substance were closer to the weight in the present case. The Court in the two cases set the starting point at 10 months imprisonment. Counsel ultimately recommends a starting point of 15 months imprisonment.
17. After considering all relevant matters, I adopt a starting point of 16 months.
Guilty Plea
18. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge when he was arraigned for the first time in this Court. This Court grants him a discount of 25% of his sentence from the starting point.
Mitigating and Personal Factors
19. The Defendant is 34 years old and lives with his partner Diana Dick. The couple have four children. The eldest is in class 5, and the youngest is 2 years old.
20. He completed his formal education at year 8 at Port Vila Primary School, as the financial constraints of the family prevented him from continuing classes. He previously worked in a trade tools company, but is presently unemployed.
21. The Defendant has no record of previous conviction. He accepts responsibility for his wrong-doing and expresses remorse for the conduct.
22. This offence took place in December 2021. That is more than 4 years ago. It is an unacceptable delay, a concern that has been expressed in similar cases recently. Justice delayed is justice denied. The delay will be taken into account when computing the Defendant’s end sentence.
23. For these personal and mitigating factors, the Defendant’s sentence is reduced by a further 7 months.
End Sentence
24. Taho Bong, I have considered all these matters and impose on you an end sentence of 5 months imprisonment.
25. I have also considered how the sentence will be served and have decided to suspend its entire term for a period of 12 months. You will however be required to carry out 50 hours of community work and will be subject to a supervision order for the first 6 months of the suspension period.
26. You have 14 days to appeal this sentence.
27. The cannabis substance will be destroyed.
DATED at Port Vila this 9th day of July 2026
BY THE COURT
………………………………………….
Hon. Josaia Naigulevu
Justice