By Linny Folau

A Fatumu man has been convicted of discharging a firearm with intent to intimidate and common assault following a road rage confrontation that left a woman and a 12-year-old boy terrified, while a baby was in their car.

Tulimi Tu'itupou was found guilty on both counts by Lord Chief Justice Malcolm Bishop KC in the Supreme Court of Tonga on 20 April 2026, following a four-day trial.

The court heard from the complainant’s evidence, Sosefina Sili that on 5 July, 2025, that she was a front seat passenger in a car driven by Pelaitia Mataele, while her 12-year-old son, sat in the back seat holding a baby on his lap.

When they reached Fatumu, just after the LDS church, two stationary vehicles blocked their path. One was a Nissan X-Trailer driven by Tu'itupou and the other a truck, facing opposite directions.

Lord Chief Justice Bishop in his written verdict accepted Sili's evidence that they waited for the vehicles to move, during which time she lit a cigarette. After the vehicles eventually moved, an exchange of words took place between Sili and Tu'itupou, which escalated into expletives traded by both parties.

Sili said that her car then drove off. Tu'itupou then pursued the vehicle, cut across its path near Laulea Beach, and forced it to swerve to the roadside. He got out of his vehicle and approached the passenger door and attempted to open it. Finding it locked, he reached through the window, grabbed Sili by her clothing, and pulled her upper body out of the car.

The altercation and verbal exchanges occured and the defendant then pushed Sosefina's left arm, hurting her.

"I will punch the shit out of you," Tu'itupou said, according to evidence accepted by the court. He also declared: "You should all [expletive] know that I am the King of Fatumu. Whenever I am in the middle of the road talking no one should interfere. Do you want me to go and grab my gun and shoot all of your tires?"

The Lord Chief Justice stated that all of these conversations were in the Tongan language and that the translator and the other Tongan speakers in court were having difficulty in providing the exact English equivalent but he was satisfied that the gist of the exchanges was accurate.

Sili added that when these exchanges took place, the defendant was standing outside her car. Her driver reversed so that they could leave and then when both cars arrived at a s set of speed bumps the 12-year-old in the back seat told his mum that the door was being opended and there was a gun.

She was also able to see through the side window that the defendant was in the middle of the road looking at them and saw the defendant placing a gun on the window of his vehicle door. After that, there was the sound of the gun being discharged. Sosefina said that she heard a bang, which she inferred was the gun shooting. She told her driver to continue to drive but at the spot where there was a tall hibiscus tree, there were further gunshots or a gunshot and leaves from the tree and other foliage fell onto the roof of the car. They continued driving to the police station in Ha’asini and made a complaint.

That afternoon, police officers found a .22 rifle, a shotgun, and cartridges in Tu'itupou's vehicle.

Vulnerable witness

The Lord Chief Justice found Sili to have been truthful and reliable. However, he did not accept that the exchanges particularly, the initial exchanges, occurred in the sober and unemphatic way she stated.

He also found the young boy's evidence to be true but was concerned on how he was being called as he was a vulnerable witness and eligible to special measures. 

He voiced on the record the court's displeasure at the complete failure of the Prosecution to take any meaningful steps to deal with the fact that they were calling a vulnerable witness, a school boy, 13 years old. He strongly recommended that all members of the Crown Prosecution attend the lectures given by Justice Garlick KC as to how to deal with vulnerable witnesses, meantime, they should consult the various protocols and so as to be in a position to assist the court.

As for Sili's evidence, he found that from the early stage she was angry at the defendant's inconsideration in loitering in the middle of the road and having a conversation, while he must have known a car was waiting to pass.

"Indeed, in my view it was her annoyance, which fueled much of what happened because it seemed to me the defendant's reply and his subsequent actions were actuated or at least influenced by what I find was his self-regard that a mere woman should not have the temerity to speak to him in this way. 

“That explains, in my view, his rather silly statement that he was the king of the local area. Be that as it may, I am satisfied so that I am sure that following these exchanges, the defendant did get out of his car and threaten the occupants of the other car with shooting the tires of the motor car and that there was a struggle in which the defendant pulled Sosefina's left arm.”

On the complainant’s arm being dislocated, the Lord Chief Justice was not satisfied because there was no medical evidence. He was satisfied that it was sprained and of course capable of amounting to an assault.

“When she gave evidence explaining the earlier encounters, and in particular the gunshots, became extremely agitated she raised her voice she gestured and gave, I find, all the hallmarks of someone who was reliving the scene and finding it distressing. I found it impossible to disregard what she said. A similar reaction came from the driver particularly when dealing with the shooting. Her voice broke and she gestured wildly and gave every impression of being very frightened indeed. These Prosecution witnesses were either acting or telling the truth. I find the latter, he stated.

“In considering the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, that is to say the front passenger, the driver and the little boy, all of whom heard the discharge of a gun to such an extent that they were plainly all petrified against what the defendant has said, I'm left in no doubt that the Prosecution witnesses' evidence alleged, is correct and that the defendant is, putting it plainly, dissembling, in other words, telling lies.”

The Lord Chief Justice also found the defendant’s account of the earlier encounters to be untrue.

“As I earlier explained he was offended that in his eyes a mere woman should speak to him in that way and he was determined to show, putting it plainly, who was boss."

He then concluded that both counts have been established to the criminal standard. It was a plain act of intimidation by way of a shotgun. Count two was the personal violence on Sosefina as was the collaring of her clothing and pulling her arm causing a sprain.

“Making it plain, that thus to count one, he did discharge the weapon that he had with him, but unable to say whether it was a shotgun or a rifle. I suspect that it was a rifle because there appear to be no shotgun pellets in the car, but there were a number of cartridges in the car.”

For the purpose of the indictment, in the meaning of the act, shots were made to cause those within earshot, in particular the occupants of the other motor car, to be frightened and to be intimidated, stated the Lord Chief Justice.

The defendant was then found guilty and convicted on both counts. He remains to be sentenced.

The prosecution was represented by Mr 'A. Fisi'iahi. Ms H. Aleamotu'a appeared for the defendant.