A case on the theft of taro leaves from a plantation in Ha'alalo was ordered to be returned to the Magistrate’s Court for a hearing, after the Supreme Court allowed an appeal.

The Supreme Court quashed a decision by a Senior Magistrate, who had earlier dismissed the case.

This was an appeal by the Police against a decision by Senior Magistrate Tuita discharging the defendants (respondents) Telefoni Kaufusi, Faka’anaua ‘Alatini, Toma’akino Toutai’olepo, ‘Ahoia Tatu’a and Temipale Siope. The Magistrate had ruled that the summons was defective because it did not include the particulars for the offence of theft.

However, Hon Justice Tupou in a judgment on February 25 overturned the Magistrate's decision, when he allowed the appeal.

The case was then remitted back to the Chief Magistrate to be assigned to another Magistrate for mentioning on March 11.

Erred in Law

The court was told that on June 27, 2020 at about 2:00pm a witness, his wife and another person were walking along the road to their home and saw the accused picking taro leaves at the complainant, Kaufo'ou Fatai's plantation. This witness was a neighbour.

The witness identified the accused, who were a group who worked on farms, and informed the complainant.

A complaint was lodged with the Police, which resulted in a summons being issued out of the Magistrate's Court for theft of the taro leaves.

All of the  accused had pleaded not guilty to the offence.

However, on December 3, 2020 the case was called before Senior Magistrate Tuita, who considered the submissions of the parties.

He ruled that an opportunity had already been given to amend the summons, which was done and that he would not give another opportunity to amend or issue a new summons. He then dismissed all summons and released the accused.

Erred in law

Hon. Justice Tupou said Senior Magistrate Tuita erred in law by not allowing the application to re-issue a new criminal summons. 

“The substance of the charge is clear, the crime of theft. The amendment to the summons is only of a technical nature. There is no prejudice or injustice to the defendants,” he said.

In addition, the application to amend or issue a new summons should have been allowed.

"The Magistrate erred in law and his exercise of discretion on the application to amend miscarried. It follows that his decision to dismiss or acquit the respondents of the charge was also vitiated."

Mr Tevita 'Aho represented the appellant, and Ms A. Kafoa for the respondents.