Public Prosecutor v Malapa

SENTENCE

Introduction

1.    The Defendant Lavinia Malapa comes before this Court today to be sentenced in relation to her conviction for a count of unlawful possession of cannabis contrary to section 2(62) of the Dangerous Drugs Act [CAP 12].

2.    She was arraigned in this Court on the 19th May 2026 and entered a plea of guilty to the charge. She accepted the facts outlined by the prosecution and was duly convicted.

 Facts 

3.    The police were on a routine patrol along the seafront at Port Vila, close to the Sound Centre store, when the officers observed the Defendant on the other side of the main street. When she saw the officers, she turned away and ran up the street adjoining the Alliance Francaise offices. The officers spotted her tossing a small box as she fled. They pursued her, and gathered the box. In it they found what they believed to be two rolls of cannabis.

4.    The Defendant was subsequently arrested. She was interviewed under caution and made full admissions.

5.    The substance found in the box was forensically examined. It tested positive for cannabis and weighed 0.43 grams.

Statutory Maximum Sentence

6.    A conviction for the offence of unlawful possession of cannabis attracts a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment or a fine of 100 million vatu, or both such a fine and term of imprisonment.

Aggravating Factors

7.    The following circumstances constitute the aggravating factors in the present case: 

a)    A proven case of possession of drug, whatever the amount is considered a serious matter that warrants stern measures: Public Prosecutor v Naio [1997] VUCA;

b)    The Defendant’s evasive action when she filed and discarded the box containing the primary evidence not only compounded the offence but also rendered her apprehension and processing by the police more onerous.

Sentencing purpose and Guideline

8.    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 her 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.

9.    This Court however recognises that in appropriate cases, these principles may have to be balanced with the need to rehabilitate offenders.

10.    The approach taken in the process of determining the appropriate sentence in this case is guided by the observations made by the Court of Appeal in its decision in the case Jimmy Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40.

Starting Point

11.    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.

12.    I have considered the submissions made by counsels, as well as the case authorities they referred to for the Court’s consideration.

13.    The prosecuting counsel refers to the observations of the Court of Appeal in Wetul v Public Prosecutor [2013] VUCA 26, and suggests that it is the leading authority on sentencing all cannabis offences. Some caution must be exercised. The Wetul guideline unquestionably provides guidance to sentencing offences concerned with the cultivation of cannabis. I would hesitate to suggest that the Court of Appeal intended to cover other cannabis offences relating to their possession and sale, offences that are clearly different in nature and often involve entirely different circumstances. If it did, it would have expressly said so. Whilst the guideline may not apply directly to these offences, some broad assistance may be elicited from it by adopting the approach of placing the respective offending according surrounding circumstances and degree of seriousness.

14.    Counsel referred to two cases. In Public Prosecutor v Homu [2026] VUSC 99 the Defendant was apprehended by a mobile police patrol and found to be carrying 2.01 grams of cannabis. The Court set a starting point of 7 months imprisonment.

15.    In Public Prosecutor v Yauko [2011] VUSC 247, the Defendant was arrested after he was found in possession of 0.34 grams of cannabis of a musical concert venue. The court adopted a starting point of 12 months.

16.    The defence counsel makes similar submission about the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wetul. My response is similar to my earlier comment.

17.    Counsel does not recommend a starting point, nor does he allude to one in the cases that he refers to.

18.    After considering these matters, I adopt a starting point of 12 months imprisonment.

Guilty Plea

19.    The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge when he was arraigned for the first time in this Court. He is entitled to a 25% discount of her sentence from the starting point.

Mitigating and Personal Factors

20.    The Defendant is 27 years old, is not married and lives with her eldest sister.

21.    Her formal education ended in year 11 at Norsup College. She later enrolled at the Vanuatu Institute of Technology where she undertook several Tourism courses.

22.    The Defendant’s chief describes her as valuable member of the community. She participates in community work and activities, and has a positive relationship with its members.

23.    The Defendant works as a baby sitter. It is her primary source of income.

24.    She has no record of a previous conviction, and has expressed deep regret for her action. She attributes the wrong-doing to alcohol, suggesting that she was inebriated when apprehended by the police.

25.    The Defendant was remanded in custody for a period of two weeks between the 14th April 2026 and 28th April 2026. This period will be taken in account when computing her end sentence.

26.    For these personal and mitigating factors, the Defendant’s sentence is reduced by a further 3 months.

End Sentence

27.    Lavinia Malapa, I have taken all these matters into account and impose on you an end sentence of 6 months imprisonment.

28.    I have also considered how the sentence will be served. After considering the terms of section 57 of the Penal Code, I have decided to suspend the entire period of your sentence for 12 months. It is ordered accordingly.

29.    However, to assist in the process of your rehabilitation, a supervision order is ordered for the first 6 months. The Corrections Services is also directed to enrol you in programs targeting drug and alcohol abuse and Niufala Rod.

30.    You have 14 days to appeal this sentence. 

31.    The cannabis substance will be destroyed.

DATED at Port Vila this 9th day of July 2026
BY THE COURT 

…………………………………………. 
Hon. Josaia Naigulevu 
Justice