Siosifa Vailima Tuita (52) was sentenced to 12-years imprisonment for manslaughter of his twin sister in Falaleu, Vava'u, last year. During sentencing in the Supreme Court of Tonga today, Lord Chief Justice Whitten KC said the accused stabbed his sister multiple times with a knife, “in what can only be characterised as a heinous and tragic crime of extreme brutality.”
The Lord Chief Justice said the defendant was initially charged with murder, alternatively manslaughter, on indictment dated 19 April, 2022.
The doctor examined the body of the victim, 'Alisi Tuita, and found she died at 7:50am from a total of nine stab wounds to her chest causing aortic rupture, armpit, back, abdomen and her head where the knife was approximately 5cm into her skull.
The Crown submitted that offending committed on 5 March, 2022 at their home was marked by the aggravating features including the use of a long kitchen knife to stab the victim nine times; infliction of extreme violence on the defenseless victim; she was his twin sister; and he had previous convictions, although not for serious violence. He had not demonstrated any remorse.
The only mitigating features were his guilty plea to manslaughter and his disordered state of mind.
On 17 October 2022, the defendant appeared before Hon. Justice Cooper, where he noted that the accused had a history of mental health problems and that in those circumstances, it was imperative to understand whether the defendant was fit to enter a plea, and if so, what he believed he was pleading to - what he thought he had done.
The defendant then gave an account in which, relevantly, he said: he did not remember doing anything with a knife; that there was a struggle on the front verandah of their house; his sister fell down and became injured; and he did not know how she got her injuries, he said.
Psychiatric report
“On 28 February 2023, Dr Puloka provided a forensic psychiatric report, in which he opined, relevantly, that the defendant has a long history of alcohol and drug abuse; in 2015, he started experiencing hallucinations; his continued abuse led to psychosis, paranoia, and other bizarre behaviours; in February 2018, he was referred to the Wellington Ngu Hospital and was admitted to the Vaiola Psychiatric Unit where he was diagnosed with "mental and behavioural disorder due to use of alcohol dependence syndrome (addiction), among others.
“Dr Puloka then opined that it is very unlikely that he was insane during the commission of the offence; the defendant's alcohol addiction and chronic brain disorder has become inherent in his system and substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in the killing; his drug related psychiatric or mental disorder and recurrent depressive moods are within the meaning of Diminished Responsibility, during the time of the commission of the offence; and he was fit to stand trial.”
The defendant was released on 3 April 2018 only to be re-admitted back three more times.
Meanwhile, on 4 March 2023, the counsel for the defendant indicated that he would plead guilty to the alternative charge of manslaughter; and having considered that indication, and Dr Puloka's findings of diminished responsibility during the commission of the offence.
“The Crown would accept a guilty plea to the manslaughter charge in discharge of the murder count.
“On 6 March 2023, when the matter was called for trial, Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Lutui confirmed the above. However, before the defendant was re-arraigned, I raised the following with both counsel in chambers,” said the Lord Chief Justice.
"With all due respect to Dr Puloka, the availability of a partial defence of diminished responsibility, and what constitutes it, are questions of law outside his expertise.
“He was asked for an opinion as to whether the defendant was legally insane at the time of the offending by reference to the definition of that concept in s 17 of the Criminal Offences Act. He opined that the defendant was not legally insane.
I“n addition, the Crown submitted that any reliance by the defendant on provocation by the deceased should be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, provocation, to any extent, did not inform the Crown's decision to accept the manslaughter plea.
“Secondly, for the purpose of this issue, the Crown was prepared to accept the defendant's version of events to the probation officer that he was not aware of his actions on the day in question, in which case, he cannot seek to rely on any conduct by the deceased as amounting to provocation. Alternatively, the Crown submitted that if the conduct of the deceased, by threatening the defendant to be sent back to the psychiatric ward, is accepted by the Court as a trigger for the offending, then if that conduct be characterised as provocation, it was very minimal and very little weight should be given to it for the purposes of sentencing,” he said.
Lack of full legal aid service
"The defendant is to be allowed a discount for his guilty plea to manslaughter. I also take into account that but for Cooper J's astute intervention, the defendant was prepared to plead, without legal advice or representation, guilty to murder.
“In that regard, I commend this case to Government, yet another example of the potential for travesties of justice resulting from a lack of a full legal aid service, particularly for serious criminal prosecutions."
“Meanwhile, the defendant does not have a clean previous record. In that regard, the Lord Chief Justice noted the references to him being violent while drunk, otherwise, he is not reported to have had any serious convictions for such behaviour.
“Finally, I allow some further discount for the defendant's mental disorder. While, as noted above, the evidence is unclear as to what, if any, part the addiction related disorder played in the offending, and is even less clear as to whether it would have occurred at all had the defendant not been so afflicted, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make some allowance for it in mitigation,” he said.
"The offending here can only be characterised as a heinous and tragic crime of extreme brutality."
The defendant was then sentenced to 12-years in prison, with the final two-years suspended for two-years on conditions. The sentence was backdated to 7 March, 2023 when he was detained in police custody.
“The other suggested psychological treatments and spiritual care will be matters for discussion between the relevant providers and the Commissioner of Prisons at the appropriate times,” ordered the Lord Chief Justice.
