A woman who is currently facing charges of possession of narcotics was denied bail variation to travel to Australia by the Supreme Court.

Justice Leutele Mata Tuatagaloa, in her ruling, stated that the inconsistencies in the defendant's evidence regarding her intended return date undermined reliability.

Additionally, Justice Tuatagaloa stated that no names or affidavits from proposed sureties were provided.

"The court found the safeguards insufficient to mitigate the risk of non-appearance," the ruling said.

Doris Te'o was released on bail and has applied to vary bail conditions to permit travel to Australia to visit family. She relied on strong ties to Samoa, such as business, property, and church involvement and also offered two sureties.

Te'o was charged following a police search conducted on 12 September 2024 at Lotopa. The defendant, together with a co-defendant, was jointly charged with possession of 0.48 grams of methamphetamine and possession of utensils for the purpose of committing a crime.

On 23 September 2024, the defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. Bail continued on the same terms and conditions.

Justice Tuatagaloa, in her bail ruling, stated that the timing of the application is of concern. The application was made approximately four months before the scheduled trial date in the week commencing 8 June 2026. She added that, in that context, the rationale for travel heightens, rather than alleviates, the concern regarding non-appearance.

"While it is correct that a person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty, an application to vary bail is not concerned with guilt or innocence. It is concerned with risk. On the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that permitting the defendant to leave the jurisdiction would create a real and unacceptable risk of non-appearance."