By Linny Folau

A man charged with two counts that included the theft of a vehicle from the Vaiola Hospital car park was found not guilty, although there was evidence that he was a passenger in the stolen car. The Supreme Court judge stated that two of the Crown witnesses 'Miki" Taulaki and Moala 'Ikani should have instead been charged with the offences.

Malakai Tu’itavuki pleaded not guilty on two counts, one of theft and in the alternative receiving stolen property, in that on 3 September 2022, at Tofoa, he took a silver Nissan x-trail vehicle  licenced L-27493, valued at $19,000 pa’anga, with the intent to deprive the owner, Solomone Filiai.

Justice Cooper, after a trial in March, in an extempore judgment acquitted the accused. A written judgment on 5 April formalized the ruling and set out the reasons for those verdicts.

The defendant was unrepresented throughout the proceedings.

The owner of the vehicle, Solomone Filiai worked at the Vaiola Hospital. His car keys were taken from his personal belongings left in a changing room on the morning of 2 September 2022. The police were informed and at that time his car was still where he left it.

The court was told that using his other vehicle, he and his wife parked next to the car that night to guard it. But, on the morning of 3 September they both had to attend a funeral. When they returned to the car park the car had been stolen. The next day the police told him they had located the vehicle at Sopu. The car and ignition key were all that was recovered (his bag and bank cards were never found). He noted that the number plates had been taken off the vehicle, but they were also recovered.

Crown’s case

The judge stated that the rest of the Crown's evidence revolved around two young men, Siosaia Kulitapa Taulaki, who is known as 'Miki', and Moala 'Ikani.

'Ofa Vea gave evidence that on Sunday 4 September she was at Sopu, by the sea. She saw Miki drive the car to a concrete hard standing, where he left it and walked off. She had seen Mr. Filiai's Facebook post and recognised it as the stolen vehicle. Her husband telephoned to the police.

Nehusita Lolohea the sister of Moala 'Ikani gave her evidence via video link. On 4 September 2022 she lived in New Zealand, and was at the time of the trial. She had tried to call her brother, Moala, some time on Sunday 4 September. She had seen the Facebook post about the stolen car and wanted to know why it was parked at Moala's house. She later asked him if he knew the vehicle was stolen, which he denied. She asked if he had returned the vehicle; he told her he had.

Moala 'Ikani gave evidence. He works both in construction and occasionally fixing vehicles, working from home, it depended on what came his way. He claimed that Malakai Tu'itavuki had arrived at his home and offered him the car in question for sale. The car was brought to his residence on the Saturday and remained there overnight until the Sunday.

The Crown's case was that Mr. Tu'itavuki had stolen the car from the hospital, or, in the alternative, had received it knowing it was stolen, very shortly thereafter, stated the judge.

“When asked by me, the Crown made, what in my judgment was a perfectly proper concession, that being a passenger in a stolen car would not amount to receiving stolen goods for the purposes of this case.”

Witnesses contradicted each other

“The key evidence the Crown relied on was that of Moala and Miki. I totally reject their accounts for the following reasons:

“Moala had stated that the car arrived without number plates, he and Mr. Tu'itavuki were alone when discussing its possible sale. Mr. Tu'itavuki had said the car belonged to his wife's uncle. Moala had told Miki face-to-face to get rid of the car and Mr. Tu'itavuki had not been given a lift back to his house in the Nissan.

“Miki had claimed that the car; had arrived with number plates, everyone was together when the sale of the car was discussed, Mr. Tu'itavuki had stated the car belonged to him and his wife, Moala had telephoned Miki to tell him to get rid of the car and that Mr. Tu'itavuki had been given a lift home in the Nisssan, among other claims.

“Apart from these stark contrasts between the accounts of Moala and Miki, Moala 'Ikani had also contradicted his sister in key evidence she had given; that she told him to report the car to the police, which he in turn flatly denied.

“The claim by Miki, that Mr. Tu'itavuki had traded the car for something to smoke, seemed highly improbable, given that it was purchased the previous year and worth $19,000. It was also a claim that was entirely absent from Mr. Moala 'Ikani's account of the events.

“Mr. Tu'itavuki had suggested through his cross-examination that he had been a passenger in the car. Miki had agreed with this. Accordingly there was evidence to suggest there was an association between Mr. Tu'itavuki and the stolen Nissan. But, that was only to the extent he was a passenger in the car. The Crown had rightly conceded, this was not enough to form the basis for the offence of receiving stolen goods.

Two other men should have been charged

“The other evidence that Mr. Tu'itavuki was in recent possession of the Nissan came from such tainted witnesses, there was never a possibility, having heard the evidence Miki and Moala, of securing a conviction. A cursory look at their differing accounts should make that plain,” stated the judge.

"On the evidence before me, it was those two who should have been charged, not Mr. Tu'itavuki."

In conclusion the defendant was found not guilty on both charges, ruled the judge.