The Crown's evidence was that this residence was occupied by two families, top and bottom, and both were said to be concerned in the supply of drugs. 

The judge said no one saw the defendant drop the packet of drugs and there was no way of telling how long it had been lying on the ground. 


"As soon as the defendant was asked about them, he stated they were not his and denied ownership, yet even though the police knew this, there was no evidence of fingerprint analysis, either taken or found, so as to associate him with that item."

A witness for the Crown, named 'Akau'ola, was a member of the Tactical Response Group that night.

“In addition, it was plainly dark at the time the police arrived, and 'Akau'ola insistence to the contrary did not bolster his credibility, nor his assertion that the lights from their vehicle rose over the white car in front of theirs, illuminating the scene.”

The judge said 'Akau'ola had also stated that there were contemporaneous photographs taken of the drugs in question. Yet, the Crown never produced any such evidence,.

"There could be any number of reasons why the defendant fled when the police arrived. To see armed strangers in an unmarked vehicle arrive at night, might make any one want to flee for reasons of fear and not necessarily because of a guilty conscience. 


“Accordingly, I can not be sure that the evidence of 'Akau'ola is accurate as to where the drugs were actually found on the ground."

He said that, combined with the fact that Latangi Tonga was in the close vicinity, a person associated with the same type of drugs, the subject and target of the warrant, muddied the water further.

"On analysis of the evidence, and all those problems the Crown face in proving that packet of drugs came from Tafolo; principally that no one saw him discard them and there is no finger print evidence to link him to it, he can not therefore be sure that he was in possession of them."

The defendant was then acquitted.