By Linny Folau

Sione Taulua (36) was sentenced to one-year and eight-months imprisonment for the theft of items valued at $13,600 from a home that his father was looking after at ‘Alakifonua, while the owners were abroad in July last year.

Acting Lord Chief Justice Tupou sentenced him on 7 March at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, after he pleaded guilty in December last year.

The court heard that the items were stolen from Latu Manu'atu's residence, in which the complainant Sipiti Taulua (the defendant’s father) was entrusted with its care, while the Manu'atu’s were in Australia.

Sipiti is employed by the Oregon construction company where the defendant worked under his father's supervision. Due to Sipiti's busy role in the company, the defendant and his family also lived at the Manu'atu residence to help out. The defendant held keys to the house.

On the morning of 7 July, 2023, Sipiti returned from work to find the items missing from the Manu'atu residence. This included 20 pieces of timber at 62x6 (worth $4,000), two rod steel pipe cornice MC 4x6, five 15-litre cans of paint, Tongan tobacco (500kg), 500m of electric wire, five suitcase of clothes, two gas cylinders and a sewing machine, worth a total of $13,600.

The A/LCJ stated that according to Sipiti the items were still at the Manu'atu residence on 5 July, 2023. He subsequently discovered that the defendant and his family had left the Manu'atu residence and moved back to his wife's parents' home at Nukuleka. His suspicion immediately turned towards his son. When he confronted his son, he denied he was responsible for the missing items. Sipiti then reported the theft to the police.

On the morning of the offending a neighbour of the defendant’s in-laws at Nukuleka, saw a white truck pulling up to the defendant's in-laws residence. She saw the defendant take several suitcases inside his in-laws house.

On 8 July, 2023, police two officers went with Sipiti to the defendant’s in-law's residence. When they arrived, Sipiti went inside his son's in-law's house and brought out several suitcases. The defendant was then arrested.

Two days later, the defendant informed police that there were more suitcases of clothing and a sewing machine at his residence. Police Officers retrieved four suitcases of clothing and a brand new sewing machine from his in law's residence. The defendant who has previous convictions admitted to the offending.

The probation officer stated that the defendant's version of the offending acknowledged that his parents resided at Mr Manu'atu's residence and he and his family would visit them frequently. Due to his father's work commitments, his father let him and his family take care of Mr Manu'atu's residence.

On the night of the offending he and others went to the Manu'atu residence and found the door unlocked. They went in and removed the items, placed them in their vehicle and took them to his in-laws' residence at Nukuleka. The probation officer reported that the defendant initially admitted the offending and then had a change of heart and denied it. Although his parents apologised to the Manu'atu's for what happened, but the defendant chose not to. She formed the view that Sione was unreliable and not trustworthy.

Sipiti told the probation officer that all of the stolen goods were returned and that the family had noticed a change in his son's behaviour.

Repeat offender

The Crown submitted the aggravating features; he is a recidivist, he breached his father's trust as well as the Manu'atu's trust in his father; the proximity of the offending to the expiration of his latest suspended sentence. In his favour was his early guilty plea and his cooperation with Police with some of the stolen items recovered.

The maximum statutory penalty for theft of goods exceeding the value of $10,000 is seven-years imprisonment.

The A/LCJ having regarded the seriousness of the offence, the value of the stolen items and the impact on the owners, the comparable sentences and sentencing objectives of punishment, deterence, denunciation and protection of the community, set a starting point of two and a half-years imprisonment. The judge ruled that a discount of 30% off the starting point was appropriate and deducted 10 months. The result is a final sentence of 20-months imprisonment.

She did not accept the defendant's culpability was diminished because he may have been coerced by his mates, nor that his cooperation with the police and the return of some of the stolen goods was an indication of his remorse, acceptance of guilt and preparedness for rehabilitation.

“The Probation Officer was not convinced of his remorse. However, when he appeared before me on 1 March, 2024 he told me that he regrets what he did; knows that it was wrong; he is remorseful about his behaviour and he will not conduct himself like that in the future. He said he was the sole breadwinner for his family.

“I accept his expression of remorse but as mentioned, he had not offered the Manu'atu's an apology or compensation for the goods stolen but not returned. I have also considered the favourable letters from Sipiti and the town officer of Malapo.”

His previous relevant record showed he had served a total of eight months imprisonment for theft. His criminal offending had since progressed to alcohol and drugs for which he was sentenced to serve two-years and three-months in prison, 15 months of that sentence was suspended, she stated.

He was then sentenced to 20-months imprisonment (one-year eight-months imprisonment) for the current offending.