By Linny Folau

Pousima Vaioleti (29) was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment with the last four months suspended for the theft of a vehicle and other items valued at $50,580 from a 73-year-old man with hearing impairment in his home at Vaini.

Lord Chief Justice Bishop sentenced him on 5 September at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, after he pleaded guilty in July. 

The accused committed the offence on 13 March against the complainant, Simione Tauelangi.

The LCJ stated that the complainant returned home at around 2:30am and parked his vehicle a grey Mitsubishi double-cab vehicle inside his garage. He left both the garage door and the entrance gate to his residence open. He removed his hearing aids, locked his room and went to sleep. When he woke up around 1:00am, he noticed that his living room was messy. He cleaned the mess and then came to the garage to get into his vehicle to go into town, and that's when he noticed his vehicle was missing.

He lodged a complaint with the Police of the following stolen items; Mitsubishi vehicle ($50,000), black metal torch ($300), black radio ($180), white Digicel phone ($130).

Ha'ateiho

Meanwhile, on 14 March 2024, Mauna, a relative of the complainant, noticed the Mitsubishi vehicle heading towards the bush area in Ha'ateiho and it was the defendant driving. She attempted to follow the vehicle but lost sight of it in Tokomololo.

At some point, Tevita Lutui hitchhiked along the road in Lomaiviti on a grey double cab. It was the defendant who was driving. He informed Tevita it was his woman's vehicle. Tevita asked to use the defendant’s vehicle to drop off his kids lunch. The vehicle ran out of petrol in front of Tonga College, so he parked the vehicle there and hitched a ride back to Tokomololo, returning the keys to the defendant.

At 3:20pm, Officer Fakateli received a phone call that someone reported a vehicle parked in front of Tonga College, Ha'ateiho. Police responded and when they arrived at Ha'ateiho, no one was in the vehicle. At the same time the complainant was contacted. The complainant arrived and identified that it was his vehicle and it was out of petrol. After Police concluded their work, the vehicle was returned. The defendant was then arrested later, he stated.

 At the same time, the Crown submitted the aggravating factors in this case was that stealing is a serious offence as it makes people live in constant fear of being deprived of their property and the accused stole the truck worth $50,000. He also has a long list of previous convictions, the majority of which are property offences. A mitigating factor was his guilty plea.

The court heard that the defendant had a long history of previous convictions beginning from 2014 to 2023. The charges included housebreaking and theft on numerous occasions, assault and a range of other property offences. He had also been convicted on disorderly behaviour, disturbance and domestic violence.

He is a frequent offender and he had admitted to the offence. In his assessment, he regretted his actions and was aware that it was illegal, yet still committed the offence.

Jail

The Lord Chief Justice in his sentencing remarks stated that this was a very serious offence, and the vehicle involved was of high value.

"I am quite satisfied that you have conducted a life of crime. It further seems to me, that you are not very good at it. In a small island such as this, the chances of finding the vehicle are very high. I accept in your favour, however, that the matter was not premeditated but opportunistic. You have a bad criminal record, originally pleaded not guilty and made no attempt to assist police even though the evidence was against you.  I see no reason to depart from the indicative sentence of 22 to 28 months from the Crown and fix the indicative sentence at 24 months.”

He then considered whether part of the sentence should be suspended, and was assisted by the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tonga in Mo'unga where the court sets out guidelines to assist the bench.

“A wholly or part suspension will depend on whether the offender is young, has a previous good record or a long period of no criminal activity. This clearly does not apply to you. Second, where the offender is likely to take the opportunity for suspension to rehabilitate. I regret to say the chances for you to rehabilitate are not very high.

“Third, where despite the gravity of the offence, there is some diminution of culpability through lack of premeditation, the presence of provocation, or coercion by a co-offender. In my judgement, the only matter that applies to you is the lack of premeditation. As I have already observed, I am satisfied, what you did was a spur of the moment because the opportunity presented itself. The fourth factor to consider, is whether there had been cooperation with the authorities. Again, there has been none or very little in this case.

“Not without some hesitation, I have decided, it is possible in your case to suspend 4 months of the sentence. This is a merciful decision in the hope that despite all that you have done and all that has been said about you, you will realise that crime does not pay. The final sentence for the offending iwas 24 months with the last four months suspended for two years.

“If during that course of that period of suspension, you commit an offence punishable by imprisonment, you will serve that period of 4 months as well as any other sentence that will be imposed at that time,” the Lord Chief Justice ordered.

The imprisonment was also backdated to his first time in remand since 23 July this year.