Long-term prisoner gets more jail time for habitual theft [1]
Friday, February 2, 2024 - 17:11. Updated on Sunday, February 4, 2024 - 19:07.
By Linny Folau
Repeat offender, Sione Tu’ifua (35) from Kolofo’ou who is currently serving seven-years imprisonment for serious housebreaking, theft and arson received additional jail time for theft of a delivery truck and items at Ma’ufanga.
Acting Justice Langi sentenced him on 1 February at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa. He was charged together with Manase Tongia and Viliami Vanisi.
The complainant, Ping Chen, is a 35-year-old male Chinese male national residing in Halaleva.
The court was told that on 1 April 2023, at around 9:00am, the complainant took his delivery truck to the Qing Jiang store at Ma'ufanga to make some deliveries. He left the engine running, while he got off to make some sales. A few moments later he saw someone jump into his truck and drive off.
The complainant lodged a complaint with the Central Police Station. The delivery truck was worth $42,000, and the items inside were worth $20,399.40. At midday the Police received information from a Chinese store at Fanga that two young children had tried to pawn them stolen property. The Police responded and they tracked down the two children.
The children were taken with their guardians to the Central Police Station for questioning. They explained that they had gone to a residence in Fanga where they were given a bundle of empty sacks and some school material to pawn to the Chinese store for money. They told police that the items were from Manase Tongia.
Manase's mother operated a stall that was situated at the Fanga compound. When she heard that the children were taken to the Police station, she contacted the Police and informed them that the defendant had called her and asked for someone to pick some items from him at Vanisi's residence. She had then instructed her son Manase to go and pick the items from the defendant as they were to be sent to one of her sons' who was at Ha'apai.
Manase then went to Vanisi's residence and took the items and returned with them to his mother's stall. His mother told him to take it to their residence and that she would take a look at them later. The Police retrieved the items from Tongia's residence that same day and were valued at $6610.20. The items found at the house were valued at $1,857.10. All items were seized and returned to the complainant, and he confirmed that they were his property.
Prisoner
The Crown submitted the aggravating factors in this case: the defendant is a recidivist with an extensive criminal history that include similar offences and the value of the stolen items was extensive.
The defendant committed the current offending after being released from his sentence in Cr 494 & 495/2021 eliminating the prospect of rehabilitation. He had also breached a suspended sentence in 474/2021 by committing this current offence and was remanded on 20 October 2023 under CR 131-2023 to await his sentence. So, he had not met with the complainant eliminating chances of an apology or any form of restitution. This negated any professed remorse.
The defendant's actions were opportunistic instead or premeditated and nonetheless showed the blatant disregard of the law and one's right to property. He pleaded guilty and cooperated with Police with majority of the stolen items were returned to the complainant.
Meanwhile, the defendant had reported himself to be a "changed man" now as he had been receiving spiritual guidance from a visiting church minister, in prison. He also admitted that before he was imprisoned, he was addicted to drinking. He also admitted that drugs were problem and that he first smoked marijuana when he was 10-years-old. He also stated that he should stop doing drugs and alcohol.
Meanwhile, the defendant had been imprisoned since 2023 for another case, he had previous convictions but he felt remorseful and hoped to turn his life around for the better.
“He is is at high risk for reoffending due to his lifestyle and association with criminals. He also demonstrates an impairment for making decisions. For the defendant, committing crime seems to come naturally. It is critical that the defendant be given extensive treatment and counselling, while he is in prison and after he's released as well,” stated the Acting Justice.
Property offender
The Acting Justice stated that the fact that the accused had previous convictions for property offences was, in her view, a serious aggravating feature in this case.
“I caution myself that whilst previous convictions are relevant to establish the character of an accused for sentencing purposes and whether he has a predilection to commit a particular type of crime, a sentencing judge should always be on guard against sentencing an accused twice for the same offences on which he had previously been convicted and sentenced. I am mindful that any additions made to the sentence in this case does not punish the accused twice for offences which he has already been convicted and sentenced.
“However, his previous convictions for similar offences does demonstrate his fondness to deprive people of their property, in which case it is the duty of the court, for the protection of the public, to take them into consideration and lengthen the period of confinement accordingly."
The Acting Justice also stated it was quite apparent from the accused's long list of previous convictions that a rehabilitative sentence was no longer appropriate. He had demonstrated that he was a habitual property offender and imprisonment would not deter him. As such, the court has a duty to protect the public from individuals who have no respect for the laws and the rights of others to their properties,” she stated.
“In Rex v Maikolo 'Ealelei CR 162/2018, the then Lord Chief Justice Paulsen lifted the starting point to 4 years' imprisonment for theft of goods valued at $34,269. This case involves stealing of goods valued at $62,399.40, nearly double the amount in 'Ealelei. I therefore lift the starting point to 6 years' imprisonment.
“For the mitigating factors outlined by the Crown and the fact that the vehicle and most of the goods stolen were returned, I take off 2 years leaving a final sentence of 5 years' imprisonment; I further activate the suspended sentence of 4 months' imprisonment in CR 474/21 as the accused has breached the conditions of the suspension by committing the crime he now being sentenced for. The total sentence is therefore 5 years and 4 months' imprisonment.”
However, the accused is currently serving a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment after being convicted of serious housebreaking, theft and arson in CR 13-22.
In light of the totality principle, I order that three years of this sentence is cumulative to the sentence in CR 131-22. The remaining 2 years and 4 months is concurrent to his now operative sentence; So I have considered the principles outlined in Mo'unga v Rex in relation to suspension and I am of the view that there is nothing in favour of any suspension in this case."
He was then sentenced to 5 years and 4 months' imprisonment; three years of the sentence is cumulative to his sentence in CR 131-22, resulting in a total sentence of 10 years and 9 months' imprisonment. The remaining 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment is to be served concurrent to his sentence in the previous offences.