Public Prosecutor v Rokasia

SENTENCE 

1.    Seles Stehen Rokasia pleaded guilty to a single charge of unlawful possession of cannabis and accepted the summary of facts of his offending. This is his sentence. 

2.    The maximum penalty for unlawful possession of cannabis is a fine not exceeding VT100 million or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years or both.

3.    On 6th March 2026 the Police undertook a search pursuant to a search warrant at the defendant’s house at Chapuis area in Luganville. During the search the Police found some substance in the house which looked like cannabis. The substance was tested and the substance was positively identified as cannabis.

4.    The total weight of the cannabis was 45.34 grams. At the relevant time, the defendant had intended to keep the cannabis in his possession for his personal use.

5.    I have considered the guide line judgements of Wetul v PP [2013] VUCA 26 concerning cultivation of cannabis and Naio v PP [1998] VUCA 1 where the Court of Appeal has said that drugs offences are serious matters that must be reflected in the sentences Courts impose to discourage such offending. I accept that each case is to be determined in light of its own facts.

6.    For comparison, the prosecution submits that the case of   PP v Iaruel [2019] VUSC 97 is comparable to the current case. In that case the cannabis involved was 41 grams. The defendant who had spent 2 weeks on remand was sentenced to 12 months supervision with a special condition that he attends a drugs awareness and rehabilitation program as directed by his probation officer and was further ordered to perform 80 hours community work.   

7.    The current case involves 45 .34 grams a difference of about 4 grams to Iaruel’s case and Seles Stephen Rokasia had spent roughly a month in custody from 7 March 2026 to 7 April 2026 before bail was granted. It was submitted that the defendant be sentenced to 12 months supervision with a special condition that he undertakes a drugs awareness and rehabilitation program directed by his probation officer. It was also submitted that a community work order of 100 hours be imposed considering the slightly high net weight of cannabis involved.

8.    I have also considered the submissions filed by the defence. The defendant concedes with the prosecution that I impose a supervision sentence with a community work order.

9.    The defendant originates from Makam village North Ambrym. He is the fifth child out of six children. He is a first-time offender and lives in a de facto relationship with his partner. He completed year 10 at Ecole Publique and could not continue due to financial difficulties. He is in employment as a builder and has practical skills in construction. He supports his living through his fortnightly salaries. He maintains a good relationship with his chief and community and participates in community activities.

10.    Having considered the submissions from Counsel, the weight of the cannabis involved and the fact that the defendant had already spent some time on remand in custody I adopt and apply the approach applied by Fatiaki J in Iaruel. 

11.    The defendant is sentenced to 12 months supervision with a special condition that he attend a drugs awareness and rehabilitation program directed by his probation officer. He is also ordered to perform 100 hours of community work.

12.    I also order that the 45.34 grams of cannabis be forfeited and condemned for destruction within 7 days. 

13.    The defendant has 14 days to appeal if he is not satisfied with the decision.

DATED at Luganville, Santo this 18th day of September, 2026

BY THE COURT

………………………
Dudley Aru
Judge