The Tongan Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals against conviction and sentence brought by former Member of Parliament Vatau Hui, upholding his convictions for indecent assault and common assault against a woman.
In a judgment delivered on 15 May 2026, the Court of Appeal — comprising Justices Randerson, White and Dalton — ruled that the original sentence imposed by the trial court remained appropriate despite identifying an error of law in the sentencing process.
Hui had originally faced four charges, including three sexual violence allegations and one charge of violence. The Crown alleged that in February 2023 he threw a chair at the complainant during an argument, and that in June 2023 he touched the complainant’s breasts for several minutes while she resisted and protested, during which he strangled her. A further allegation involving an attempted indecent assault in July 2023 resulted in an acquittal.
Following a judge-alone trial before Mr Justice Garlick, Hui was convicted on two charges arising from the June 2023 incident: indecent assault and common assault involving strangulation. He was acquitted on the remaining charges.
Appeal challenged verdicts
The appeal challenged the verdicts on several grounds, including alleged inconsistencies in the trial judge’s findings and questions relating to consent. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, finding the trial judge had adequately explained why he accepted the complainant’s evidence on one incident while holding reasonable doubt on another.
The appeal court said the evidence accepted at trial described “a considerable physical struggle” in which the complainant “was shouting and screaming in protest and struggling against the appellant physically for some minutes.”
Although the court expressed concern about part of the trial judge’s legal reasoning on consent, it concluded the issue did not affect the outcome because the factual findings established that the complainant had not consented.
The court stated: “There could be no reasonable basis for the appellant forcefully touching the complainant’s breasts for several minutes when she was struggling to get away from him and shouting at him to stop.”
Hui had been sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment on the indecent assault conviction, with the final nine months suspended, alongside a concurrent six-month sentence for strangulation.
On appeal, Hui argued the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on his previous good character, public service as a Member of Parliament and Minister of the Crown, and poor health following a stroke.
The appeal court acknowledged an error by the sentencing judge, who had treated Hui’s decision to go to trial as aggravating because it forced the complainant to relive her trauma in court. The Court of Appeal ruled that exercising the right to trial could not lawfully be used against a defendant in sentencing.
However, the judges concluded the sentence itself remained appropriate.
“We consider the sentence imposed in this case was the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding the error of law identified above,” the court said.
The judges also noted Hui’s public office could be viewed as aggravating rather than mitigating.
“In some ways it is an aggravating factor that the appellant was a Member of Parliament; he is someone who ought to have set an example in law-abiding conduct as a leader of the community,” the judgment said.
The court ordered that both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence be dismissed.
A continuing suppression order prohibits broadcasts and publications in Tonga from naming or identifying the complainant as the victim of the offending.
Mr T. Naufahu appeared for the Appellant and Mrs E. Lui for the Respondent.
