Toio Lauteau (43) was sentenced to three-years imprisonment for causing serious bodily harm, when he hit his wife twice on the head with a hammer in ‘Ohonua, ‘Eua. 

Hon. Mr Justice Niu sentenced him on November 11 at the Nuku’alofa Supreme Court, after being found guilty in a trial in September.

The accused caused harm to the complainant and wife, Mele (42) when he hit her on the head with a hammer twice causing lacerations to her head on May 7, 2018.

They have been married since 2011.

The probation report stated, the couple were both asked about the offence and both denied that the accused caused the injuries to the wife. They also claimed that the wife's injuries was because she fell and and hit her head against the table.

In addition, the accused expressed no remorse for what he had done and still claimed that he did not cause the injuries. The wife's close relatives have said that he had commonly abused her and that, she had to move out but then she would come back to him.

The probation officer said, despite the serious offence of assaulting and injuring his wife with a hammer, it was very important that they have promptly reconciled and remained together for two-years now free of any offence or abuse or ill-treatment being reported.

Defense counsel recommended that an imprisonment sentence be wholly suspended, with conditions that the accused be placed on good behavior, among other requirements.

On the other hand, the Crown disagreed with submissions for a suspended sentence.

The accused offending was serious, his wife sustained injuries as a result, when he used a hammer as a weapon to inflict the injuries and was intoxicated when he did it. The only mitigating factor was that this was his first offence, said the Crown counsel.

Law

The judge said, the Courts are responsible for giving effect to the laws enacted by the legislature for the protection of the people against violence, especially violence against women, and in particular violence involving a weapon.

'“Immediate imprisonment is required to give effect to those laws.”

“Otherwise, those laws would be seen to be pointless. For example, if every first offender who has caused injury with a weapon is given a suspended imprisonment sentence, then any person who has no criminal recorded is entitled to cause an injury to another person with a weapon because he would not have to serve his imprisonment sentence for it because it would be suspended,” he said.

The judge said, “if the Courts were to follow such practice, how many people would need to be so injured before the Courts would see the need to change that practice?”

“But what is worse is that the Court may be seen to have indirectly caused those injuries to be inflicted upon those people by allowing such a practice in the first place to be followed. That just should never be.”

He said, this is further exemplified by the enactment by the legislature the amendment to section 107 of the Criminal Offences Act in 2012, under which the accused was charged and have been convicted.

Protection of wives

The judge said, what is clear from the amendment is that the legislature directs that a heavier penalty be imposed upon persons who have committed serious causing bodily harm. 

“In this case, the accused told the probation officer and no doubt everybody else, that he did not cause the injuries to his wife at all.

“But you know that is not true. You did not stand up in Court during your trial and give evidence on oath that was what happened. You persuaded your wife to stand up in Court instead and give evidence on oath that, that was what happened, but which was not in fact what happened.”

“Even the doctor herself observed that his wife looked scared and shocked.”

The judge said he must consider that this is a case of a husband beating his wife. 

“Many, if not most of the wives do not complain to the police, and many who have complained seek to withdraw their complaints, after their husbands have apologised to them and they have forgiven them. That is exactly what has happened in this case.”

“The accused beat his wife with a rock hammer on her forehead and on the back of her head. The cut on the forehead exposed the bone of the skull. The force used must have been great to cause that, said the judge.

“That is precisely why the laws have been enacted, such as the Family Protection Act and why the Courts have been given the responsibility to protect the wives against their husbands.”

The accused was then sentenced to three-years imprisonment but the last two-years was suspended for three-years, on strict conditions.