Penisimani Nonu (29) received a suspended sentence for numerous counts, including forgery of health certificates to a shop owner at Tofoa in January 2022.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery and two counts of knowingly dealing with forged documents.

Lord Chief Justice Whitten KC sentenced him on 21 April at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa.

He said at the time of the offending, the defendant was employed by the Ministry of Health as a Public Health Inspector Grade II. As such, he was authorised to conduct person and food inspections at retail and wholesale shops, and to issue Certificates of Registration to shop owners who passed their food inspection.

However, the defendant was not authorised to issue Health Certificates to shop owners that had passed their person inspection because he was not a Medical Officer.

On 28 January 2022, Hou Zhi Huang (Huang), a Chinese shop owner from Tofoa, went to Vaiola Hospital to arrange for the inspection of his shop. After paying the applicable fee of $155, he was given a receipt.

Huang noticed the defendant there and remembered him as one of the officers who had previously inspected his shop. Huang asked the defendant whether he could work on his Certificate of Registration and Health Certificate. The defendant agreed. Huang gave him the receipt and the defendant told Huang that he would drop the certificates to his shop.

Later at around 6:00pm, the defendant went to Huang's shop and issued him with a Certificate of Registration and Health Certificate. However, the defendant also gave Huang a Certificate of Registration dated 31 January 2022 and a Health Certificate dated 28 January 2022 for another person by the name of Mei Juan Ni.

The defendant also gave Huang a box of face masks and asked him for money for petrol. Huang gave him $40. One to two weeks later, the defendant went back to Huang's store and asked for $200 to tend to his family needs. Huang gave him $100.

In May 2022, Huang then went to Vaiola HospitaI to renew his health certificates. It was then that the doctor there identified that Huang's certificates were forged. Dr Takai asked Huang who issued him the certificates, Huang told him it was the defendant.

On 18 May 2022, the defendant voluntarily confessed his wrongdoing to his supervisor and CEO. The CEO considered the matter sufficiently serious to refer it to the Public Service Commission. The PSC regarded the Defendant's actions as serious misconduct and referred the matter to Police.

The defendant was then charged, arrested and remanded in custody. He co-operated with the Police and admitted to the offending. He has previous convictions.

Suspension

The defendant claimed to have only issued the Health Certificate because the officer in authority was very busy during the Covid-19 outbreak. He told the probation officer he had 'no ill-intention' and only 'wanted to help'.

According to the probation officer, the defendant has expressed remorse, learnt his lesson, and is grateful to the Public Service Commission and Ministry of Health for reinstating his employment.

The LCJ said the probation officer assessed the defendant as a 'low risk of re-offending' and recommended probation with community service.

"The key distinguishing feature between the instant offending and that the subject of the comparable sentences relied on by the Crown is that the defendant here did not set out, initially at least, to obtain any financial advantage from the issuing of the certificates."

“In that context, his explanation to the probation officer has a ring of truth about it. It appears to have been an opportunistic afterthought to ask the recipient, Huang, for some money after the event. Huang could well have refused. Even then, the defendant only received a total of $140. By comparison, the defendants in a number of the cases referred to above orchestrated their deception for the purpose of obtaining employment for promotion within employment which represented a great potential pecuniary advantage, at least until they were detected.

“It is also noteworthy that, unlike a number of those cases, the defendant's employer has kept him on and, through his Supervisor at least, appears to have maintained confidence in not only his ability, but his integrity going forward .

“In those circumstances, I place the present offending very much at the lower end of the spectrum of criminality for offences of this kind, he said.

"The defendant is still young, and he fully cooperated with the authorities. Even though he does not have an unblemished record, he does not have any previous convictions for offences involving dishonesty and the two assaults are over ten years old. His reconciliation with his employer tends to indicate that he is likely to take the opportunity offered by a suspended sentence to rehabilitate himself. There is also some diminution of culpability through lack of premeditation.

“Ultimately, the overarching consideration on this issue is whether suspension is likely to aid in the defendant's rehabilitation. In my view, it is. Therefore, his rehabilitation is, in turn, also likely to benefit the community."

Meanwhile, the Crown contended that any suspension should only be partial because of the defendant's criminal history.

The LCJ did not agree and stated reasons why including:

“Requiring the defendant to now serve a term of imprisonment would mean the end of his employment and there is no evidence to suggest that upon his release, he would be reinstated to his current position, or any other, which may well have a negative impact on his prospects of rehabilitation; the probation element of a fully suspended sentence is likely to provide valuable support and guidance for a relatively young man whose father has only recently passed away, he has shown genuine remorse and a determination to rehabilitate, among others.”

The defendant was then convicted and sentenced to 18-months imprisonment, which was fully suspended for two-years on conditions.