A police officer was acquitted of bribery, after a Supreme Court judge found the evidence had not established, that he accepted money as inducement to carry out his duties.

Hon. Mr Justice Cato acquitted Viliami Nusi on the one charge of bribery in Nuku'alofa.

The charge was that June 14, 2018 at Pelehake, while on duty the accused accepted a bribe of $250 pa’anga cash from Sione Tupouto’a, as an inducement to his conducting a criminal investigation.

Tupouto'a gave evidence that a significant amount of his property was stolen from his tax allotment in April 2018. He reported the matter to the Mu'a Police station and two days later he met the accused, who had been assigned the case.

Shout

The Court heard, they talked about the matter and Tupouto'a told the accused that if he got back any of the property he would "shout" him. It seemed nothing more was said about the issue of a shout, and the accused was not reported to have said anything in response, said the judge.

Tupouto'a said he told the accused this because he wanted him to focus his mind on getting the property back. 

About a month later, there was another conversation between the two and the accused informed Tupouto'a that some wire had been located. 

This was at the police station, where Tupouto'a identified the wire as his. Shortly after this, he told the accused he would shout him and the two met on the road at Pelehake where he gave the accused the cash. He also told the accused that he would give him more if more of his stolen property were recovered.

Defence

Defence counsel submitted there was no evidence that the accused as a member of the Tonga Police had been induced by the suggestion of a shout in exchange to perform his duty and locate the property. 

The evidence, in his submission, did not reveal any more than that the payment constituted a gift to the accused for a service that had been rendereed. In short, the evidence did not establish that the accused accepted the money as an inducement to do or refrain from doing his duty as a police officer.

The judge said, the Crown seemed to accept that the payment of the money said to be for past services did not constitute a bribe, but contended that the accused in taking more steps such as taking a statement from a suspect or suggesting to the complainant a person might be arrested was acting under an inducement. 

“I do not accept this. The money accepted by the accused was, as Tupouto'a said, a gift for locating the wire. The fact that the accused may have done further work subsequently on the case was not evidence in my view of his acting under any inducement but consistently in the performance of his duty,” said the judge.

In addition, the Crown attempted to advance the Police Code of Conduct introduced under the Police Act, which prohibits members of the police from accepting gifts other than in very limited circumstances. 

“However, while accepting a gift improperly may lead to police disciplinary action, it is irrelevant for present purposes,” said the judge.

He said, the accused here did not, when Tupouto'a said he would shout him for returning the property, make any comment about this. “There is nothing to suggest in the evidence that he was motivated by this offer to perform his duty.”

Due to the absence of any express statement by the accused or other evidence that gives rise to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that he did so, the judge was unable to find that the accused accepted the money as an inducement to perform his duty.

“In my view, the accused wrongly retained the money. By doing so, he laid himself open to disciplinary action for doing so under the Police code and at least suspicion for taking a bribe to perform his duty.”

However, the judge did not consider beyond any reasonable doubt that the evidence established the accused accepted the money as an inducement to perform his duty.