By Linny Folau

Pita Fanua (48) was sentenced to five-years imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm when he struck another man on the face with a fishing torch causing permanent blindness to his left eye, in a family incident in Ha’apai in 2020.

Acting Lord Chief Justice Tupou sentenced him on 3 October at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa.

On 12 July, 2023, the defendant was found guilty by a jury after a trial of causing grievous bodily harm on the victim, Tu'ipulotu Tafolo, who is married to the defendant's adopted daughter, Mele Kafo’atu. They lived in a separate house on the same compound. The defendant and the victim, and their respective families are all members of the Free Church of Tonga.

The A/LCJ said the offending was on 14 August 2020, when  the church at Ha'afeva held its "misinale” and subsequent feasting. Afterwards, the boys from the church gathered at the beach for drinks. The victim accepted an invitation to join them. At around 1:00pm, the victim returned home for food. He returned to the group and later returned around midnight when the drinks finished.

Around midnight, Kafo'atu was at the defendant's home with her mother. They heard some noise and Kafo'atu went to investigate. She found her husband sitting outside. He was drunk and asked after their two elder children. She told him they were with her parents. He said he wanted them returned and they started to argue. The argument between Kafo'atu and the victim became heated to a point where he lunged at her. She ran to the town officer's home for help. When she did not find him there, she and his wife went looking for him.

Upon their return they saw the victim fighting with one of the defendant's step sons. Around the same time, at least five members of the community police turned up. Kafo'atu pleaded with them to take her husband where he would be safe as he was inebriated.

The boys disregarded her words and attacked the defendant. He fell to the ground and they kept on attacking him. His nose and mouth were bleeding. They dragged him to the house he and Kafo'atu occupied and sat him on their bed.

Meanwhile, the defendant had received a call from his wife to return home. On his return Kafo'atu tried to calm him down. She begged with him not to do anything and to leave the victim alone, promising to report him to the police. The defendant said he had had enough and told Kafo'atu to be quiet. The defendant entered the house occupied by the victim and Kafo'atu and delivered a blow to the left side of the victim's face with the fishing torch he held in his right hand.

The victim said the vision in his left eye blacked out when the blow landed. Kafo'atu said she saw a depression on the left part of her husband's face where the defendant struck him and blood shooting out of his left eye after the hit.

Kafo'atu pleaded for help but received no assistance from the defendant. Others helped her take the victim to the hospital at Ha'afeva and later by boat to Fusipala Hospital at Pangai. There he was examined by the doctor was found to have sustained fractures to his face with possible blindness in his left eye. The victim was transferred to Vaiola Hospital for x-rays and further examinations, she said.

On 24 August 2020, at Vaiola Hospital, the doctor attending to the complainant reported that the victim had sustained a mid-face "Lefort 2" fracture and a perforated globe of his left eye. On 25 August, 2020, an operation was undertaken for evisceration of his left eye.

He opined that the injuries sustained resulted from the use of a heavy force applied to the face with a hard object and that the perforation of the victim's left eye resulted in permanent blindness and permanent disability (total blindness). The permanent blindness caused to the victim's left eye.

The defendant is a first-time offender.

Blindness

In the victim report, the victim has forgiven the defendant but has not forgotten what happened to him. The incident caused total blindness in his left eye, pain in the eye when he bows down and sporadic memory loss. Despite the defendant's family apology, no personal apology has been offered by the defendant to him.

The A/LCJ said the Crown submits that a custodial sentence is appropriate with a starting point of five-years imprisonment to be lifted to six-years imprisonment for the defendant's not guilty plea, seriousness of the crime and the use of a weapon.

The Crown accepted the defendant was entitled to have a portion of his sentence suspended and recommended the final 18- months be suspended with an additional 12-months for the unjustified delay in the Police prosecuting this matter.

The resulting proposed sentence is five-years six-months imprisonment with the final 30-months suspended for three-years on conditions.

“Further, I have considered the pre-sentencing report with some concern in relation to the recommendation for a fully suspended sentence. That was obviously predicated on a mistaken understanding of the proceedings and facts. The defendant did not plead guilty nor had he apologized to the victim.

“Although the offending involves members of the same family and any period of incarceration will affect them, any sentence imposed must reflect the need to protect people, members of the public whether they are related or not and the appropriate penalties legislated by Parliament,” she said.

“For those reasons, I set a starting point of five-years. I lift the starting point by 12-months for the brutal attack on the victim as he was bleeding and suffering from injuries from an earlier group attack, his rejection of attempts by Kafo'atu to dissuade him and his failure to assist obtain medical attention for the victim, resulting in a final sentence of six-years imprisonment.

“Against the attestations to the defendant's positive attributes and the suffering his family will experience, the court must consider them against the seriousness of the offence, the grievous injury suffered by the victim, lack of remorse indicated by the absence of an apology after 3-years, the maximum statutory penalty, the principles of punishment, deterrence and the interest of the public that persons who commit serious criminal activity as here are appropriately punished. For those reasons, I accede to the Prosecution's submission and suspend the final 30-months of the defendant's sentence.”

The A/LCJ then sentenced him to five-years imprisonment, with the final 30-months suspended for two-years, on conditions. This means he is serving 30-months imprisonment.

Failure to comply with those conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded and the defendant being required to serve the balance of his prison. she said.

Meanwhile, the defendant has credit for any time spent in custody on remand for the charges in this case.