Fanguna Alalea (33) was sentenced to three-years imprisonment for offering a bribe to another police officer to take drugs from the Police exhibit room last July. This was in regards to a case concerning Sione Filipe Jr. “A police officer seeking to corrupt another police officer, is in my view, one of the most disgraceful acts imaginable,” said the Chief Justice.

At the time of the offence Alalea was a police officer from Tu‘atakilangi. On February 6 this year he had pleaded guilty to one count of offering bribe of $2,000 pa’anga to a member of the Tonga Police.

Lord Chief Justice Whitten sentenced the defendant on March 13, at the Supreme Court in Nuku'alofa.

He said on July 13, 2019 at around 5:00am, Constable Tu'amelie Fifita, a member of the Drugs Enforcement Taskforce was talking with members of his family, after a wedding at a car park in front of the old Yacht Club on Vuna Road.

The defendant who came to look for another police officer joined Fifita.

The defendant then told Fifita that he had an acquaintance that deals drugs and that he had been given money to find someone willing to do what was asked of him, in exchange.  

Fifita asked the defendant the name of this acquaintance. He said it was just a friend. Fifita then told the defendant that he was still a little bit drunk and asked whether they could pick up their conversation later on in the day.

The defendant agreed. He took Fifita's cellphone number and left.

The Court was told, at around 5:00pm that day, the defendant contacted Fifita and asked him whether he should come over to Fifita's home to talk about, what they had discussed earlier in the morning.

Fifita told the defendant not to come over, but that he would contact him later and tell him where to meet.

At around 7:00pm, Fifita rang the defendant and told him to meet at the car park area opposite the former Yacht Club on Vuna Road. Fifita was then joined by a police colleague, WPC ‘Otuhouma. They drove to the car park and waited.

At round 7:45pm, the defendant parked his car behind Fifita’s. Fifita got out of his car and walked to bank of the foreshore and sat down. He was then joined by the defendant. When the defendant sat down, he took out a bundle of cash from his pocket and tossed it next to Fifita.

Drugs

The Court heard that Fifita then asked the defendant "what is this?".

The defendant said that it was $2,000 from his friend and asked Fifita if he could go to the police exhibit room and take some drugs, because there was a shortage everywhere.

Fifita told the defendant that it would be impossible to do so because most of the methamphetamine in the Police Exhibit Room had been taken to New Zealand for testing and that if any of the small amount left disappeared, it would be found out.

Fifita then told the defendant to take the money. The defendant said "no" and told Fifita to take the money and buy some food because the person who gave him the money would not ask for it.

The defendant then told Fifita that he should take the money and consider it a blessing. The defendant then left, leaving the cash next to Fifita.

Fifita took the cash to his car and reported the matter to WPC 'Otuhouma.

Both officers then counted the money and confirmed that it was $2,000. They reported what transpired to their Commanding Officer and were instructed to surrender the money and write statements about what occurred.

On July 14, last year the defendant was arrested and charged.

Sione Filipe Jnr.

Lord Chief Justice Whitten said, at the conclusion of the defense counsel submissions on sentencing, he asked the defendant why he had committed the offence.

He said that his acquaintance was one Sione Filipe Jr, whom he had met when Filipe was arrested for importation of Indian hemp.

The defendant said he got to know Filipe during his time in custody.

He said, when Filipe was released on bail, the defendant said he invited him to attend a Mormon Church conference. Filipe did not attend but continued to contact the defendant.

Filipe then asked the defendant to help him with “a job” and explained that Filipe gave him the $2,000 to get drugs from the Police Exhibit Room.

The defendant said that in agreeing to do what Filipe had asked, he realized now that he made a wrong decision, and for which, he received no benefit, financial or otherwise, said the Chief Justice.

Judicial concern over Evidence Act

Meanwhile, Crown Prosecutor Tevita 'Aho advised that Prosecution had been made aware of Filipe's identity, which led to him also being originally charged with this bribery offence, along with another drug related offence.

“On February 6, 2020 before me, the Crown determined not to pursue the bribery charge against Filipe due to what was then said to be a lack of satisfaction in relation to the evidence on that charge.

“Today, Mr 'Aho explained more fully that the reason for that decision was that the evidence available to the Prosecution, including information provided by the defendant here was considered insufficient to meet the corroboration requirements of s.126 of the Evidence Act,” said the Chief Justice.

“That being the case, I add my voice to the growing choir of judicial concern that consideration of legislative reform is urgently required to reflect longstanding changes to the common law elsewhere, where the rule prohibiting convictions on uncorroborated accomplice evidence has been abolished, and to avoid risking serious miscarriages of justice."

Disgraceful

The Lord Chief Justice on sentencing considered a starting point of four-years imprisonment.This was after considering this case was marked by two circumstances of aggravation, which made it far more serious than any ordinary case. He said this included that at the time of offending, the defendant was a serving police officer.

"A police officer seeking to corrupt another police officer, is in my view, one of the most disgraceful acts imaginable among those in important positions of power and responsibility, and who are entrusted with the safety and security of the community as a whole."

In addition, the offending was deliberate and calculated, involving a gross breach of trust, which sought to undermine the integrity of police operations and strike at the heart of public confidence in law enforcement.

The second circumstance of aggravation was that the object of the offered bribe was not to avoid arrest or prosecution, but to illegally obtain illicit drugs, which had been seized by police from other operations.

"That purported plan by which it was presumably intended to recirculate those drugs within the community was both insidious and reprehensible."

“Further, while it is not known what exactly, in terms of class and quantity of drugs was expected for the bribe or whether it was just intended as a start for ongoing cooperation, the sizeable sum of $2,000 given without any agreement from Fifita to become involved, strongly suggest it was potentially part of a much larger and more lucrative illegal enterprise,” he said.

Mitigation

Lord Chief Justice Whitten considered the defendant' s early guilty plea, previous good record and reported remorse and reduced the starting point of the sentence  by 12 months, (to three years imprisonment).

"In terms of level of culpability, he took into account from the facts stated that this was a single incident where the defendant was not the prime mover in the plan described above but was more of a middle man or go-between in delivering the offer and cash to Fifita on behalf of the defendant's so-called acquaintance."

He said, the defendant's explanation for his involvement left unclear the extent to which he was involved in hatching this plan or had been successful, the extent to which he might have been further involved.

Three years

He sentenced Alalea to three-years imprisonment. The Chief Justice said that a requirement of the sentence was denunciation and deterrence.

In further considering whether to suspend all or part of the sentence the Chief Justice said even though references showed the defendant appeared to be highly regarded by his community, in judgement he was ambivalent about the defendant's prospects fo rehabilitation and whether any good would come from a period of suspension.

 “...he consciously committed the offence in full knowledge of his position in society as a police officer, the damage to the community that could have been done if his bribe had been accepted and the high likelihood of being imprisoned (and impact of that on his family) if, as here, the bribe wasn't accepted....his explanation for his actions leaves one at a loss to understand such diametrically opposed portrayals of character and behaviour. It follows that one is also at a loss in trying to form any firm view of his prospects of rehabilitation.”

However, the Chief Justice was satisfied that the defendant should be given some opportunity for rehabilition, and suspended the final-year of his sentence on conditions.

The suspension of the final year was on conditions that he be placed on probation, reside where directed by the probation officer and must not commit any offence, among other terms for a period of two years.

This means he serves two years imprisonment.

The $2,000 offered was ordered to be forfeited to the Crown.

Following his dismissal from the police force, Alalea had been employed as a music teacher at Liahona High School. He has six young children.

Counsel for the defendant was Siosifa Tu'utafaiva.