Fili Langi Ta’ai (57) who pleaded guilty to one count of bribery of a member of Tonga Police was sentenced to nine-months imprisonment, which was fully suspended at the Supreme Court on June 25.

On May 23, 2019 the defendant was arrested regarding a drug related group criminal activity and remanded in custody. That prosecution is still pending before the Magistrate's Court.

Lord Chief Justice Whitten during sentencing said that on a number of occasions while in custody, the defendant asked the complainant, the police officer, whether there was any other way he could be granted bail.

On July 3 the defendant arranged for another person to take a box of chicken, a six-pound can of corned beef and some sweet potatoes to the complainant's home in Fanga. 

She dropped the food off at the complainant's home and when he called out to her asking who it was from, she told the complainant it was from the defendant. 

The complainant then contacted the Police and reported what had happened.

On July 7, the same person visited the defendant in custody and told him that she had given the food to the complainant. The defendant thanked her.

The food items were valued at around $190 pa’anga.

The defendant remained on remand in custody on the drug related charges until he was granted bail on September 3, 2019. 

Sentence 

The Crown submitted that bribery of a police officer is a serious crime because it strikes at the integrity of our system of justice and it is appropriate to impose a custodial sentence.

In addition, it submitted that an appropriate starting point is two-years imprisonment, with a discount allowed for mitigation on account of the defendant's early guilty plea and previous good record.

The Chief Justice said offending of this nature was rare in Tonga. The Crown provided only two domestic comparative sentences.

He said for any property related offence involving goods of $190 in value, a fine or other non-custodial sentence would be appropriate.

However, for this offence,which involved dishonesty directed towards police officers, the maximum penalty of seven-years imprisonment was a clear indication by Parliament of the seriousness with which the offence was to be viewed, he said.

"I have not been moved by the plea that the purpose of the defendant's bribe was only to have the officer work on securing the defendant's bail. The offence arises whenever any person gives or offers to give any member of the police force any benefit as an inducement to do or refrain from doing any act in the execution of the officer's duty. It is not limited to inducing a police officer to do something unlawful."

Further, while the value and circumstances of the bribe placed this case at the lower end of the spectrum for offending of this kind, it still involved a 'corrupt intention' as discussed by the Court of Appeal, he said.

He then did not consider it to be of a trivial nature sufficient to warrant a good behavior bond pursuant to s.198 of the Criminal Offences Act. A bond was also unlikely to effect deterrence.

In order to give effect to the legislative intent and the critical need for deterrence, an appropriate starting point was 12-months imprisonment. But on account of the defendant's early guilty plea, previous good record and remorse, that starting point was reduced by three-months, resulting in a sentence of nine-months imprisonment.

The Chief Justice said, having regard to the considerations in Mo'unga v R [1998] Tonga LR 154, including the defendant's good record, remorse, family and community support, some diminution in culpability by reason of the lengthy period in which he was in custody and his cooperation with the authorities, there is good cause for optimism that he would take the opportunity presented by a suspended sentence to rehabilitate himself.

He then suspended the whole sentence for one-year on conditions, that included him not committing any crimes, being placed on probation and carrying out 60-hours community service.