Two of the counts were against each of them for possession of 1.02 grams of methamphetamine and utensils, namely 1 test tube, 3 straws and 1 weighing scale.

Tongatu'a was charged with possession of 7.65 grams of methamphetamine. On another count, Tongatu'a and Veikune faced possession of utensils, namely nine empty packs. While, Veikune alone was charged with 0.18 grams of methamphetamine.

Suspected meth 

The judge said that in the use of both the TruNarc drug analysis equipment and the reading of the findings for the meth, it is essential to have an officer trained in the use of the TruNarc device present to ensure the results were correct verified by another trained officer.

“This was not the case here.

“The report stated that it was signed off by Officer Pale as the officer who conducted the test and then by Police Officer Tu'itavuki as the witnessing officer who had verified the results. Both had been trained in the use of the TruNarc.

"This information was untrue."

Officer Tu'itavuki had not witnessed the testing of the exhibits. 

“In his evidence, Officer Tu'itavuki stated that as Officer Pale handed him the certificate to sign, he had read through the purported certificate where all the measurements were set out and signed the last page. That is all he had done,” he said.

Defence submitted that the evidence of the scanned reports should be excluded, when the officer who conducted the tests had not, in fact, had the necessary oversight of another trained colleague.

The Crown, on the other hand argued that to have another colleague present during testing was only good practice and not a statutory requirement. The testing had been done so as to create the reports and those reports as printed out confirmed the items were methamphetamine.

Left in doubt

The judge said, “given that Officer Pale accepted that having another officer trained in the use of the TruNarc device present was essential to ensure the results were correct, he is left with a doubt as to whether they were in fact correct, given the lack of compliance with what was said to be a mandatory aspect of the testing that goes directly to its said reliability 

“Without more evidence on the point as to whether the scans were correct or not (either in the way they were administered or read or the self-check process or all three aspects), I am not able to say for sure that they were,” said the judge.

"The effect of that finding is that there is no evidence that the Crown can rely on to prove the items were indeed methamphetamine."

“As for the utensils' possession, there was also insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonble doubt the charges against the defendants.”

The defendants were then acquitted of all charges.