By Linny Folau

Sione Po’oi (33) of Halaleva, was sentenced to five and a half-years' imprisonment, partially suspended, for engaging in dealings with another person to transfer to Tongatapu, a portion of 437.94 grams of cocaine that washed up on the shores in Vava’u. He is the 12^th person sentenced for his involvement in this scheme.

Mr Justice Cooper sentenced him on 30 November at the Supreme Court in Nuku'alofa, following a trial, in October, for one count of engaging in dealings with Andrew Motuliki for the transfer of a Class A illicit drug. 

The defendant committed this around July-August 2021, at Tongatapu.

The judge said Po'oi was the 12^th defendant to be sentenced for being significantly involved in the scheme to possess and or distribute a portion of a salvaged shipment of cocaine washed up in Vava'u in 2021.

“Some consideration to the background of the sentencing tariffs already imposed must be noted in order to demonstrate consistency and fairness in the instant case. In arriving at the starting points for the below defendants the following matters were considered. The sentences for the two co-defendants sentenced by Lord Chief Justice Whitten KC; R v Cox & Cox, Cr 153 and 157 of 2022, and his approach in their cases.”

He said the maximum sentence for an offence under this section is a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for any period up to life, or both. 

“Cocaine is a Class "A" drug. The attitude of these Courts when sentencing for Class A drug possession and supply has been to take as their starting point the guidance of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the case of Zhang v R [2019]. The quantity is but only one factor; in considering which band and where, within a particular band, a starting point should be set. Consideration must also be given to the role of an offender.

“In addition, in Mr. Normani Naeata, a 15-year starting point was adopted for possession of 3 kilograms of cocaine for this consignment. For Miss Na'a, a 10-year starting point was set for the offence of supplying one kilogram of cocaine. Pertinently, Mr. Andrew Motuliki was sentenced for the offence of supplying the 437.94 grams to Mr. Sione Po'oi and the starting point of six and a half-years was the tariff arrived at,” he said.

Admission to Police

“In each case, the starting point was then considered in the light of the role each defendant played. Mr. Po'oi was convicted on the basis of his admissions in his statement to police. There was no evidence before the Court that undermined or expanded upon that confession.

“In that statement, he accepted that he knew he was involved in a scheme to bring cocaine to Tongatapu, on behalf of Andrew Motuliki who was to make money from that arrangement. Who was to sell it is not clear. Whilst it may be thought there was bound to be some reward, financial or other in it for Mr. Po’oi that is not clear either.

“That said, it is beyond any doubt that in making the plans he did, Mr. Po'oi was instrumental in deliberately causing large quantities of highly addictive Class A drugs into Tongatapu for financial reward, even if not his directly, or at all.”

The judge said when considering the United Kingdom's Sentencing Council guidelines in assessing culpability this is through an offender's role. Significant characteristics are Mr. Po'oi's awareness and understanding of something of the scale of the operation, his function within the chain and that he was aware of the financial motivation that the supplier involved him in.

“Accordingly, his involvement in this offence whilst it is rightly categorised as a significant role, it falls within the lower end of that bracket, given the limits to those characteristics.”

The judge said  the discount for all mitigating aspects of Mr. Po'oi's case hade been considered along with the appropriate period to suspend and reasons given.

“In his pre-sentence report a number of references are submitted in regards to his good character, among others. The defendant was also candid about what he did and regretted his involvement. There are a number of positive references; his church priest, his wife and others, who all similarly described him as honest and dependable, a changed man; a committed colleague, friend, parishioner and husband.”

Sentence

The judge then set a starting point of six and a half-year is appropriate in this case.

“This I reduce by 12-months to reflect his level of involvement, there being no evidence that he would benefit financially and for his previous good character and the positive references on his behalf. That gives a tariff of five and a half-years."

He then considered the principles in Mo'unga [1998] Tonga LR 154. Those principles, set out in that case, are so as to promote rehabilitation. He said the considerations advanced in that case were whether the defendant was young, of previous good character, or passed a long time, without offending; whether the defendant would take the opportunity to rehabilitate.

“Whilst the pre-sentence report does not deal with his risk of harm to the public or likelihood of re-offending, I conclude from the report that in respect of both criteria he is at a low risk given his relative youth, previous good character and remorse. That being the case it is appropriate for a portion of his sentence to be suspended.”

“At the same time, the sentences passed by this Court on the co-defendants involved portions of each of their sentences being suspended. In no case was that less than two-years; for example Andrew Motuliki was sentenced to seven and a half-years' imprisonment, the last  two years suspended for two years or Fe'ofa'aki Havea was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, the last two suspended for two years or Leonati Motuliki was sentenced to seven and a half-years imprisonment, the last year suspended for two years.”

The judge said given the need for parity amongst all co-defendants, he concluded that two years of Mr. Po'oi's five and a half years sentence ought to be suspended for two years on conditions.

He was then sentenced to five and a half-year imprisonment with the final two-years suspended, on various conditions. In addition, three-weeks and four days spent on remand must count towards his sentence.

All drugs and paraphernalia were to be forfeited and destroyed. All monies seized to be forfeited.