Soldier convicted of beating civilian [1]
Monday, June 22, 2020 - 18:47
One of three soldiers jointly charged with causing serious bodily harm to a civilian two-years ago was found guilty by the Supreme Court, on June 18, while two soldiers were acquitted.
Hon. Mr Justice Cato convicted Paea He Lotu Sika, and acquitted his co-accused 'Apolosi Vea and 'Alungamonu Maka, after hearing evidence in a trial.
The three accused were jointly charged with causing harm to the complainant, Hopoate Teisina when they repeatedly punched and kicked him, fracturing his jaw.
The Court heard on November 4, 2018 at around 8:00am, members of His Majesty's Armed Forces (HMAF) were returning from Nuku'alofa to Taliai Military Camp at Fua’amotu, after attending a flag raising ceremony to commemorate Tupou I Day.
They travelled in two buses. Both bus drivers, Pita Tapa and Halahuka Kohinoa (army officers) gave evidence. When the two buses reached Vaini, in front of Beulah College the complainant, and another male were stopping vehicles in the middle of the road.
The judge accepted the evidence of Tapa, the driver of the first bus, that there were two incidents, when they got off the bus.
The first when the three accused had been directed to get the complainant out of the way, during which the complainant had punched Sika.
Beating
The judge said in the first incident in Sika's case, he was assaulted it seemed by the complainant.
Then in the second incident.Sika said that he punched and kicked the complainant and hit his head, face and mouth.
The judge said there was no suggestion of self-defense in his record of interview.
On the issue of causation, he considered viewing Sika's actions without resort to any concerted or common purpose because the other accused had been acquitted in circumstances, which negatived their involvement in a culpable concerted attack.
Causation meant that the Crown, however, had only to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sika's assaults, whether punching, kicking or both to head,face or mouth of the complainant was a material cause of the bodily harm, which was particularised as a broken jaw.
Sika was specific about punching and kicking the complainant in an area that included the mouth in his record of interview. The medical report, as well as noting a fractured mandible noted that the complainant had limited mouth opening.
In these circumstances, the judge considered that the inference was irresistible beyond reasonable doubt that the actions of Sika by punching and kicking to the face and mouth were willful and materially contributed to the fractured jaw.
Sika was then convicted.
Acquittal
However, for the defendant 'Apolosi Vea there was no independent evidence that implicated him in any concerted attack on the complainant.
The judge said, the evidence was not sufficient in relation to this accused to infer beyond reasonable doubt that he acted in concert with either of the other accused to beat the complainant, resulting in his broken jaw in the second incident.
The defendant 'Alungamonu Maka was also acquitted.
The Crown bears the onus of negativing self-defence or defence of another.
The judge said, he was left in a state of doubt on this issue because there was no reliable evidence that negatives the possibility that, when this accused was caught up with, the complainant did not act, as Maka said, in what must have been a fast moving, dynamic event before he was assaulted and fell to the ground.
He then gave this accused the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of causing serious bodily harm.