Thief of Tongan handicrafts jailed by Appeal Court [1]
Friday, October 1, 2021 - 19:12. Updated on Friday, October 1, 2021 - 22:19.
By Linny Folau
'Ana Katokakala Siale (37) had her suspended sentence for house breaking and theft of Tongan handicrafts valued at $14,100 pa'anga, quashed by the Appeal Court on October 1.
She was then sentenced to two and a half-years imprisonment and will serve the first six-months at Hu'atolitoli Prison.
This was after, the Appeal Court in a judgment allowed an appeal from the Attorney General, that her sentence in the Supreme Court was manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle.
Siale had pleaded guilty on November 3, 2020 to one charge of house breaking and another of theft of mats and ta'ovala, valued at $14,100 committed on June 15, 2020.
Hon Mr Justice Niu sentenced her on February 12 this year to five-years imprisonment, which he fully suspended for three-years on conditions.
Offending
The Court said from the summary of facts, she broke into the complainant's home at Nukunuku, while the complainant was absent from the property.
She then sold some of the handicrafts to a loan business and an unspecified number of the products were recovered from the owner of that business.
She is married with seven children ranging from 16 to four-years of age. Her husband is employed.
In addition, she has recently started a small business cooking food for sale to help support the family and told the sentencing judge she was remorseful and had offered an apology to the complainant.
She has a prior history of offending of a similar nature, said the Court.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lutui submitted for the Crown that the final sentence of five-years imprisonment, fully suspended for three-years on conditions, was manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle.
The Appellate Court was satisfied in the present case that the sentence imposed was wrong in principle.
"This sentence was an unusual combination in that it involved a lengthy term of imprisonment to reflect what the judge considered to be the seriousness of the offending and then suspending it."
While, the suspension for the first three-years could assist inrehabilitation, it would have the unfortunate result of then requiring Mrs Siale to serve the last two-years of the sentence in prison. We conclude that the appeal must be allowed and an alternative sentence substituted, said the Court.
"We consider that a proper reconciliation of the objectives of deterrence and rehabilitation would be met by reducing the overall length of the sentence but substituting an alternative suspension regime requiring Mrs Siale, to serve an initial period of imprisonment followed by suspension of the balance of the sentence after her release into the community."
The Court said, the correct approach to suspension is to require her to serve the first six-months of her sentence, with the remaining two-years suspended from the date of her release for two-years.
It then allowed appeal and quashed the sentence imposed in the Supreme Court. In substitution, she was sentenced to two and a half-years imprisonment.
She now serves the first six-months of her sentence with the remaining two-years suspended from the date of her release for two years, on condition that she does not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment, ordered the Court.