Tevita Fifita was found guilty of using a vehicle with an unauthorized licence plate and was discharged without conviction on the basis that he pay to court $200 pa’anga by way of compensation, which he had done when a verdict was delivered by a Supreme Court judge on November 17.

He was also acquitted on two other counts, when he was found not guilty on an attempted interference with the course of justice and discharged on reckless driving, at the request of the prosecution because they had not issued a summons within 14-days of the offence as required by the Traffic Act.

This related to an incident when he crashed his police vehicle into the front gate of the Queen Salote wharf, at around 1:00am on November 19, 2016, in Ma'ufanga.

Fifita, who was the Chief Superintendent in charge of the Central Police station in Nuku’alofa at the time was suspended soon after a police investigation.

The court heard on the reckless driving count, at around 1:00am he drove at a speed without keeping a proper lookout north across the intersection of Alaivahamama’o Bypass and Vuna roads, and crashed through the wharf's entrance gate.

On using a vehicle with an unauthorized licence plate, he affixed to this vehicle a licence plate C7582, which was not the police licence plate issued for that vehicle.

While the attempted interference with the course of justice charge, was on November 21, 2016 when he called another police officer to remove the licence plate C7582 from the vehicle that he had driven, which had collided with the wharf's entrance gate and replaced it with licence plate P1591, in order to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle from being known.

Covert drugs operation

The court heard that in order to maintain a covert presence, the accused determined that his police vehicle, which he had been given to use during his work and travelling to and from work, should have the police registration number plate removed and another number affixed.

At the time of the accident, his vehicle had the private plate still affixed. After the accident, he had returned home and on the next morning directed a police officer in the mechanical engineering division to replace the damaged windscreen.

The accused, in his evidence said he was in charge of an operation concerning drug plantations at ‘Eua. He had changed the plates to assist the surveillance and he had approved this kind of activity of authorising plate switches before.

He denied knowledge of a policy that the Police Commissioner had to approve a plate change, but knew that the practice had been adopted because he had done this himself.

He said ordinarily it was changed back when he had conducted his surveillance because other police used the car, but on November 18 he had not done so. He had intended to change the plate back the next day, after he had returned home and rested.

This had arisen after the covert operation was said to have been successful when a container of cannabis was secured, at 8:00pm on November 18. The accused had been at the police station with the container at around 10:00pm. He left the station about 11:00pm and went home. He wanted to rest and would change the plate the next day. He then remembered he had to attend a police fundraising dance at Dupencia Bar near the wharf, and went there.

There were many police officers there and the accused said he had one beer. As he was leaving some beers were placed in his car; about five to six bottles. He then went back to the police station and checked the container was secured and the guarding officers were present, at around 12:30am.

He then went home and was about to have food when an informant rang and told him of a problem in Fangaloto. He was travelling to Fangaloto and fell asleep around the Vuna Road. He hit the cross bar on the gate at the wharf and that woke him up.

He then proceeded to drive to where the seafront swimming pool was but thought it better to get home and rang and apologized to his informant. He got home between 1:30-2:30am.

The judge accepted his explanation for the plate change was that he was undergoing covert surveillance and the evidence given by Chief Inspector Fakateli went a long way to confirm his reason for carrying out surveillance.

"I accept he had been provided with sensitive information and had decided to carry this out himself. I accept his reasons for not changing them after surveillance on November 18, which appears to have been a long and very heavy day with the accident being in the early hours of the next day. I accept his evidence for changing the plates, I also accept that perhaps mistakenly but in good faith he considered that he was in a position to authorise this, and that he had done so before."

Verdict

The judge further accepted the accused explanation, when he said he fell asleep momentarily when approaching the Vuna Road on his way to Fangaloto, and the evidence did not suggest otherwise.

"There was no evidence led which would suggest that he had other than a long and hard day on police business. I do not accept and, indeed it was not suggested by the Crown, that he had been drinking to excess that evening."

Meanwhile, at the conclusion of the Crown's case, the counsel for the defence Tu’utafaiva submitted that the reckless driving charge could not succeed because the prosecution had not issued a summons within 14-days of the offence as required by the Traffic Act.

Although the accused had been suspended by the police from November 24 last year and it seemed he was charged, the summons had not been issued to him until April 3, 2017.

Crown prosecutor Lutui asked for time to consider this matter and discuss it with his superiors and the next day indicated that he could not proceed with the prosecution of this count.  This count was therefore dismissed.

In relation to the Crown's case on the attempted interference with the course of justice count, the judge accepted the accused evidence that he wanted to attend to the damage himself and get the car back into working condition as soon as possible, and took steps to do so on the November 19.

"I fully accept that this was an acknowledgement by him that he was to blame for the damage to the car and accepted responsibility to pay for that, which was quite a considerable sum," he said.

"As to his actions of asking for the plates to be exchanged, I observed that he had not withheld from the mechanical engineer who was a member of the police force that he had been involved in an accident and he said he had told a senior police officer of this also on the morning after the accident," he said.

The judge had indicated to the Crown, he would consider this is an appropriate case where a discharge without conviction on using a vehicle with an unauthorized licence plate should take place on the basis that the accused paid $200 for prosecution costs.

He said the circumstances of the offending, he was satisfied took place in conjunction with a successful police operation and the accused held a genuine belief that he was entitled to change plates and for that reason and taking into account his excellent service record, no conviction should be entered.

"I found the accused a credible witness. He is plainly a person of good character having served the Tonga Police for 35-years and being of a very distinguished rank and in charge of the largest police station in Tonga."