‘Inivenesi Helu (39) is serving one-year imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm to a 17-year-old teenager by using a machete during an altercation, in Nuku'alofa.


Lord Chief Justice Whitten QC sentenced him on March 5, after he pleaded guilty in January at the Nuku'alofa Supreme Court.

The altercation occured on July 12, 2020 leaving the victim, Tevita Hafoka injured on his right arm, after being hit with the machete by the defendant

He was taken to the hospital and was treated for a 7cm deep laceration, which required internal and external sutures. 


For the past year, the defendant has been employed as a taxi driver earning $150 per week.

The Crown submitted that the aggravating factors was that this assault was premeditated because the defendant left the scene after the initial fight and returned with a machete, indicating that he intended to use it.

He also punched the victim first, used a machete and chased the victim after assaulting him.


According to the probation officer, after the incident he apologized to the victim and was forgiven.

However, the Chief Justice said, there had been no independent statement by the victim or any member of his family before the Court to confirm the defendant's assertion.

He was therefore skeptical about it and recommended that, in future the Crown as a matter of course, obtain impact statements from victims of crimes such as the present in which any expression of forgiveness may be recorded first hand.

The Chief Justice said any verified forgiveness by a victim cannot operate as exoneration and even though the crime here is against a person, all criminal prosecutions taken in the name of the Crown involve offence to the state representing the whole community.

"Ultimately, in my view the weight to be attributed to forgiveness is to be measured not so much by reference to anything the defendant has done or not done following the commission of the offence, but rather by reference to the effects of the offending on the victim and his or her family."

No full suspension

Lord Chief Justice Whitten then did not consider that the sentencing objectives of punishment, denunciation, protection of the community and rehabilitation, ;in this case can be effectively achieved by full suspension.

He gave the defendant the opportunity and incentive for rehabilitation, by imposing partial suspension.

The defendant was then sentenced to two-years imprisonment, with the final 12-months suspended for two-years. This is on conditions that he is on probation and must complete a course on alcohol awareness and life skills, among other requirements.

Failure to comply with the above conditions will likely result in the defendant being required to serve the suspended period of his term of imprisonment, said the Chief Justice

The defendant was also given credit for time spent in custody on remand in relation to this matter.