Temipale Tatafu (36) was sentenced to 30-months imprisonment for serious housebreaking, theft and serious wilful damage of goods valued over $10,000 pa’anga of another man at Fangaloto in 2022.  

Lord Chief Justice Whitten KC sentenced him last month at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa. He pleaded guilty to all counts.

At the time, the complainant was in a de-facto relationship with the defendant's estranged wife whom he was separated from.

On the evening of 9 September 2022, during an argument, the defendant lunged at the complainant to beat him and then started smashing a vehicle, belonging to another person, Viliami. This occured when the complainant and the defendant's estranged wife arrived in the vehicle, on their way to Vaini to pick up her children (with the defendant).

The defendant got into the vehicle and drove off, while the two fled elsewhere.

Later that night, at Fangaloto the complainant's sister said that while in her house located behind her brother's house, she saw the defendant removing the louvres from a window to her brother's house, climbed inside and smashed electronic equipment and other items belonging to him. He also smashed the vehicle.

When the complainant returned to his house, he found that a number of his electrical appliances, including computers and sound equipment had been damaged. Those items were valued at $14,050. He also identified that an electric drill (valued at $700) and security camera equipment (valued at $2,500) had been ;stolen.

The complainant lodged a complaint with the Police, and when arrested the defendant admitted to the offending because "he was angry”. He also admitted leaving the drill inside the vehicle but said that he threw the camera into the sea at Tofoa.

The LCJ said the seriousness of the offending here is marked by the fact that, after seeing his wife and the complainant together, the defendant drove to the complainant’s house, in a car that did not belong to him, with a clear intention to harm the complainant by damaging several items of his property and stealing others.

"That may have been motivated by jealousy does not detract from the seriousness of entering the complainant’s residence, without permission, and with intent to commit serious crime."

Dishonesty

At the same time, the LCJ said in light of the conflicting and opaque accounts of the defendant’s criminal history, he caused a search of the Court records to done, which revealed that the defendant belatedly pleaded guilty to embezzlement and theft of a total of $6,958.79, while working as a foreign teller at Westpac Bank. 

On 21 June 2013, Justice Cato sentenced him to nine-months imprisonment for the embezzlement, fully suspended for two-years on conditions and 100 hours community service for the theft. The file does not contain any reasons or sentencing remarks, he said.

"Even though those offences occurred approximately 10-years ago, they were offences of dishonesty. Of the instant offences, I consider the serious housebreaking and theft to also involve dishonesty. Therefore, any discount which might have been available by virtue of the defendant’s early plea and assumed clean record must be attenuated by the fact that he has previous convictions in this Court for offences of dishonesty."

In addition, he said the indictment and summary of facts only refered to the value of the goods damaged as being $14,050.

They do not specify the value of the damage to those goods or whether, for instance, they were totally destroyed or rendered beyond repair or salvage such that their market value is a proper measure of the damage done. The Crown did specify, however, that some 12 items were damaged. On that basis, I am satisfied that this count is properly one for serious wilful damage.

He also noted that the defendant has also had the benefit of not being charged with stealing Viliami’s vehicle or damaging it.

Protection of community

The Courts have an obligation to protect persons from being victims of crime in their own homes and deterrence and the protection of society are principal sentencing considerations in cases of this kind, said the LCJ.

"Therefore in my view, the sentencing imperatives of denunciation, deterrence and community protection attract greater emphasis for offences such as serious housebreaking."

The defendant also has had a significant period free of crime, is in good employment, appears to be doing well in other related professional endeavours and has young children.

“After weighing all those considerations, I have come to the view that it is not appropriate to order that the sentence be fully suspended. To do so, in all the circumstances, would risk sending an erroneous message to the community that the Courts tacitly condone or acquiesce to behaviour of this kind, which is most certainly not the case.

In my view, the proper balance between the defendants’ interests and his rehabilitation on the one hand, and the community’s interests and the other sentencing objectives referred to, on the other, may be struck by a significant portion of the sentence being suspended."

The LCJ then sentenced him to 30-months imprisonment, with the final 15-months suspended for two-years on conditions.

"Failure to comply with any of those conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded, in which case, the defendant will be required to serve the balance of his prison term."