By Linny Folau

Habitual property offender, Siaosi ‘Ulukivaiola (25) a prisoner, got more jail time for breaking into the Ministry of Revenue office and stealing laptops and other property worth $34,650. His two co-offenders who received the stolen property were also sentenced to jail, with one sentence suspended.

Acting Lord Chief Justice Tupou sentenced the trio on 30 October at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa.

This was after the accused ‘Ulukivaiola pleaded guilty to two counts of serious housebreaking and theft in January this year.

On 15 August, Viliami Tu’ipulotu was convicted, after a trial on one count of receiving stolen property. On the same day, Heneli Manuofetoa was also convicted on two counts of the similar offence.

‘Ulukivaiola will serve, in total, a sentence of two-years and six-months imprisonment.

The judge in sentencing him to three-years and six-months imprisonment, added 18-months of the present sentence to be served at the end of his existing sentence in CR 73 of 2023. The balance of his sentence is suspended.

Suspects

‘Ulukivaiola committed the offences on the night of 27 August 2022, when he broke into the Ministry of Revenue office at Kolofoo'u through one of its windows and stole five laptops, a water blaster and other goods valued at $34,650.

The court was told that on the next day he sold the four laptops to Heneli Manuofetoa in exchange for smokes. Then on 29 August 2022, Siaosi took the fifth laptop to Manuofetoa's residence to be unlocked. That day, the Police were heading to his residence on a lead that Andy Tapa'atoutai for whom they were searching, was there. They met Manuofetoa on the road at 'Anana and followed him to his home. At this time, the police were weary that he was a suspect for a different housebreaking and theft incident. When the Police arrived at the residence, they found ‘Ulukivaiola and Viliami Tu’ipulotu there with a number of laptops and other electronic devices.

The Police seized these electronic devices including the items stolen by ‘Ulukivaiola from the Ministry of Revenue's office. Shortly after, the Police received a complaint from the Ministry of Revenue.

Meanwhile, staff from the Ministry were then able to identify, five HP laptops; one Samsung wall mounted flat screen and its remote control; one STIHL water blaster; one external hard drive; and one grey laptop bag stolen from their office.

The Crown submitted the aggravating factors for ‘Ulukivaiola was the seriousness of the offending; the substantial value of the goods stolen ($34,650) and that the accused was a habitual property offender.

High risk offender

The judge stated that the complainant reported that there were substantial losses incurred by the Ministry in relation to fixing the damages caused to the office building as a result of the accused's actions.

The users of the stolen laptops were unable to conduct their work as a result of the theft. The laptops were also reformatted causing a loss of data, however, their IT department managed to restore the information. The items recovered, valued at $30,500, were in good condition. 

The Crown recommended the starting point for ‘Ulukivaiola should range from four to four and a half -years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offending, his continuous disregard of the law and minimal chance of rehabilitation.

The maximum statutory penalty for serious housebreaking is 10-years imprisonment and seven-years imprisonment for theft.

The judge stated this was also the accused's third housebreaking and theft offending. He had other previous offending involving violence and theft. His sentence of one-year imprisonment was fully suspended for charges of housebreaking and theft in 2021.

 “The probation officer observed the Siaosi is a high risk to the community as he has no regard for other people's property and now Government property. He repeatedly lied about his criminal history claiming he has never committed a crime demonstrating in her opinion no repentance or remorse. She said that, ‘he has a habit of weaving different kind of stories to express remorse’. She recommended a full custodial sentence.

“I accept the Probation Officers submission that Siaosi falls in the category of high risk offenders to the community. He has not only demonstrated that any opportunity of rehabilitation will be flagrantly disregarded but that he has continued to offend while awaiting this sentence."

Heneli's partial suspension

The Crown submitted the aggravating features for Heneli to be the seriousness of the offending, his recidivism and his role in the offence also involved an element of premeditation. The mitigation feature was his cooperation with the police.

The A/LCJ stated that his recidivism has meant he spends a lot of time at Hu'atolitoli Prisons. He suffers from gout and is currently renting a place at Tofoa and is financially dependent on his wife, children and siblings abroad.

Meanwhile, he accepts his conviction and expressed that his time spent in prison has allowed him to reflect on life, his family and his children. He claims he refused to accept the stolen items but said that Siaosi came to his residence with the stolen property asking for money.

As to whether Heneli is entitled for suspension, Heneli is not young; he previously experienced a long period of seven-years of a crime free life up until 2019. Unfortunately, since then he has been charged four separate times for various unrelated offences. He was previously granted a suspended sentence in 2012 but he did not utilize it to rehabilitate himself. Notwithstanding that I am prepared to adopt the Crown's suggestion of suspending the final 12-months of his sentence on conditions, said the A/LCJ.

Heneli was then sentenced to two-years imprisonment with the final 12-months of his sentence suspended on conditions.

Full suspension for Tu'ipulotu

For Viliami Tu'ipulotu, the Crown submitted the aggravating features was the seriousness of the offending, his role in the crime and being convicted after a contested trial.

The judge stated that it was accepted that he was entitled for some mitigation for his cooperation with the police and this offending being his first property offence. A deduction of six-months was suggested. As to whether any part of his sentence should be suspended the Crown proposed a full suspension on the condition that he complete 60-hours of community work.

The maximum statutory penalty for receiving is the same as theft, the judge stated.

“As for the possibility of suspending part of his sentence, I consider Viliami to be young and is likely to use any suspension of his sentence to rehabilitate himself. Further, he played a minor role and did not receive the goods for himself or personally gain anything from unlocking the laptops. Although he was convicted after a trial, I am prepared to adopt the Crown's suggestion of suspending his sentence in full on conditions and I do so.”

He was then sentenced to one-year six-months imprisonment fully suspended, on conditions that includes not committing any offence punishable by imprisonment; being placed probation, among others.

"Viliami is to take note that failure to comply with the said conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded, in which case, he will be required to serve the balance of his prison term," she said.