The Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa sentenced ‘Okona ‘One’one (31) to four years imprisonment, with some part suspended, for charges including possession of 5.04 grams of methamphetamine at his home address in ‘Anana.

Justice Cooper sentenced him on 17 July to four years with the last two suspended for three years, on conditions, for three charges that included possession of ammunition, namely two 9mm without a licence and unlawful possession of drugs utensils (one smoking pipe, three test tubes, one weighing scale, one straw and 541 empty packs).

The illicit drug, utensils and $436 pa’anga were seized on 30 July 2023, when police acting on information, attended and searched his home address.

The Crown submitted the aggravating factors against him was the substantial amount of the Class A illicit drug (methamphetamine) he possessed; and for the purpose of sentencing, section 4(2)(b) applies, and the defendant could properly be described as possessing the illicit drugs for supply.

This was based on the substantial amount of methamphetamine, the manner in which the illicit drugs were being stored and the utensils, which are used for the supply of illicit drugs.

Meanwhile, the defendant's pre-sentence report stated that he was of previous good character, married with four children, with his wife is pregnant expecting twins. He was assessed as being at low risk of re-offending given this was his first offence and his guilty plea. That said, the report acknowledged that he was still associating with those who use illicit drugs, stated the judge.

Supplier

Due to the substantial amount of methamphetamine, the comparable sentences, his significant role, and the operation of section 4(2) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, the appropriate starting point for the head count was 5 and a half years' imprisonment.

Given the defendant’s guilty pleas, being a first-time offender, his limited cooperation with Police, a 24 months reduction to the starting point would be appropriate, leaving 3 and a half years imprisonment. The appropriate sentence for count 2 was 5 months imprisonment.

The judge stated that the appropriate sentence for count 3 was 12 months imprisonment. As the offending in all three counts arose out of the same facts and on the same date, it was appropriate for all the sentences for counts 2 and 3 to be concurrent to the sentence for count 1.

In considering the guidelines established in Mo'unga v R [1998] Tonga, the Crown was of the view that the defendant should be granted some suspension of his imprisonment sentence.

“Although he is not young, he is a first-time offender and would most likely utilise a partially suspended sentence for rehabilitation. The other matters in favour of suspension is the early guilty pleas and the limited assistance to Police in the investigation of all three offending.” 

After considering comparable sentences, the judge stated from the forgoing, he considered that 5 and a half years for 5.05 grams of methamphetamine was slightly too high.

“When I take into account the possession of scales and the number of empty bags (541) I am quite sure that this was possession for commercial supply of a significant quantity. Looking at his role and the quantity, I conclude a starting point of 4 years is appropriate. I note that in respect of the cases that I have referred, these all pre-date the statutory assumption under section 4 of the Illicit drugs Control Act”, he stated.

In respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of 0.25 grams or more, such person shall be deemed to be supplying such...class A drugs.

“Accordingly, I conclude that the starting point must be increased to reflect the fact of the possession being for the purposes of supply. The possession of the scales and over 540 dealer-bags makes it entirely clear this was possession with intent to supply; so far more serious than simple possession.”

The judge added that because of this aggravating factor, he increased his sentence to 5 years' imprisonment. But he asked, what discount can properly be applied Mr. 'One'one first pleaded guilty, then he denied knowledge of the illicit drugs to probation. Then he maintained a not guilty plea and had the matter set down for trial. Then at the after the first day of evidence he pleaded guilty.

“It seems to me that he always wanted to enter a guilty plea but was scared of the consequences, rather than someone who was intent upon denying the truth. Having considered this carefully, a 30 % discount for the earliest possible guilty plea is not available, but conclude a 20 % reduction in his sentence is a fair approach. That makes a reduction of 12 months, therefore a sentence of 4 years (48 months) imprisonment. 

“Both count 2 and 3 to run concurrent with one another and with count 1,” he ordered.

On suspension, after considering the principles aimed at promoting rehabilitation, the judge stated it was noteworthy that the defendant was assessed in his pre-sentence report as being of a 'low risk' of re-offending and that he is supported by his family.

“Having weighed these factors, I conclude that the last two years of his sentence can be suspended, though that will be for the maximum period, 3 years and intensive conditions imposed to support him in his rehabilitation. Accordingly, he shall with placed on probation, among other conditions.” 

The defendant who is now serving two years in prison also had his sentence back dated to his first remand in custody on 28 February this year.