By Linny Folau
Katieli Mahe (39) and ‘Etimoni Toumolupe (39) will serve 18 months in prison each for the theft of two rolls of copper and aluminium cables and receiving stolen property from their former employer, Tonga Power Ltd. Justice Tupou delivered the sentences on 18 March in the Supreme Court, Nuku’alofa. Mahe admitted to two counts of theft, while Toumolupe admitted to two counts of receiving stolen property.
The judgement noted that on 6 December 2023, Mr. Kalu took charge of Tonga Power Ltd (TPL) stock and discovered two missing cable rolls a week later. CCTV footage from 7 December 2023 showed Mahe and two others loading an aluminium cable onto a TPL truck. Mahe, with another person Tu’ipulotu, and Toumolupe sold the roll to a Chinese businessman for $1,200, splitting the money. In January 2024, TPL officials interviewed and arrested the defendants, who admitted the offences, though Tu’ipulotu fled to Australia. The stolen aluminium cable was valued at $30,859.20 and the copper cable at $63,187.20, totalling $94,046.40. The pair had no prior convictions.
High value
The Crown highlighted the aggravating factors as the high value of the stolen items and the breach of trust. Mitigating factors included their early guilty plea, cooperation with the police, lack of previous convictions, and remorse.
For Mahe, his pre-sentence report indicated that he had been an employee of TPL for 20 years since his transfer in 2005. He was considered a reliable worker due to his experience and work type. As a result of these charges, he lost his job.
He admitted to the offences but revealed that others who committed similar acts were allowed to settle the matter by repaying the company's loss. He was noted to be genuinely remorseful. The Probation Officer recommended a fully suspended sentence.
The pre-sentence report stated that Toumolupe was employed by TPL in 2010, after working for Shoreline Company Ltd. At Tonga Power, he supervised linesmen before being dismissed for this offence. He expressed deep remorse and regret. The probation officer believed he could change if given a chance. “In this instant both Mahe and Toumolupe had served the company for over 20 years and were no doubt trusted employees having access to the company’s stock. The theft involved goods of substantial value at $94,046.20 and the act to some extent systematic.
Partial recovery
Justice Tupou stated, “It involved arrangements with the Chinese businessmen and for Toumolupe to be picked up on the way on each occasion. This was not done once to support Mrs Moala’s submission that it was out of character. They repeated the same act, the same way. These present in my view special circumstances that render imprisonment necessary.”
The judge stated that the maximum sentence for theft of goods valued over $10,000 is seven years of imprisonment. The penalty for receiving stolen goods is equivalent to that of theft.
For mitigation, it was agreed that 18 months should be deducted from counts two and four, and 12 months from counts one and three, due to the early guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, cooperation with the authorities, and partial recovery of the stolen items, he stated.
Considering the seriousness of the offence, the value of the stolen items, the loss sustained by the company (despite some goods being recovered), comparable sentences, and the sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence, denunciation, and community protection, there was consensus between the parties on the Crown’s proposed sentence, and she established the starting points accordingly.
"It is said they are remorseful but the attempt to blame the company for settling with others and not with them gives me some doubt of the degree of remorse. I have given consideration to their personal circumstances and those dependent on them. But this court has time and again held that the breadwinner plea does not on its own justify a fully suspended sentence.
“I do not doubt that the defendants will take the opportunity offered by a suspended sentence to rehabilitate themselves. But I bear in mind the caution in the exercise of discretion to suspend that it ought not to risk sending the erroneous message to the community that the courts are tacitly condoning or acquiescing to criminal behaviour.”
Justice Tupou noted that both men had lived crime-free lives for 39 years, held jobs for over 20 years, and had young families. These factors suggest potential for rehabilitation.
They were sentenced to three years each, with the final 18 months suspended for two years on conditions. Non-compliance could lead to completing the remaining sentence. They are now serving 18 months each, as ordered by the judge.
