Noble Tangipa acquitted of stabbing [1]
Tuesday, June 1, 2010 - 17:04. Updated on Monday, September 9, 2013 - 18:40.
THE Niuas Noble's Representative in the Tongan Legislative Assembly, Noble Tangipa, was acquitted on June 1 by a jury on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm by stabbing Gerhard Sanft with a knife at the Hotel Nuku'alofa in 2008.
Seven jurors who heard the evidence since May 24 took only an hour to deliberate in closed chambers before delivering a unanimous "not guilty" verdict for Tangipa the Niuas Noble Representative to the Tongan Parliament.
Tangipa had pleaded not guilty to a charge of grievous bodily harm in an incident on July 12, 2008.
Chief Justice Anthony Ford who presided over the trial summed up the evidence and advised jurors in order for the Crown Prosecution to establish the charge against the defendant it must prove four important elements. These were firstly, that the defendant caused the grievous bodily harm to Gerhard Sanft; secondly, that the bodily harm amounted to the grievous bodily harm under the Section 106 of the Criminal Act; that he acted wilfully, meaning he had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to the degree the Crown alleged; and finally, the Crown must establish that the cause of bodily harm was without lawful jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice then pointed out to the first element on who caused the bodily harm to the victim. He said the noble's defence was that he did not cause the stabbing wounds to Gerhard Sanft.
In the facts relating to the first element, defence counsel Clive Edwards said there were about 30 people at the bar on this night and not one person came forward to say that they saw Tangipa stab Gerhard. He said Edwards also submitted that even Gerhard himself in his evidence did not say that the noble stabbed him.
The Chief Justice added that the Prosecution case led by 'Aminiasi Kefu relied heavily on the interview of the noble by the police.
The defendant was only cross examined by the prosecution and just the question over whether he was angry that the door was not opened in which the noble answered that he was angry but not that much. Apart from that he was not cross-examined on anything else.
The Chief Justice added that the noble was not asked to explain why his sworn evidence in court was different to his unsworn evidence in his statement to the police.
He then directed the jurors that it was up to them to decide whether they relied on the evidence given by the noble on oath or that given to the police.
Sharp object
He then pointed out that the prosecution made the conclusion that the defendant stabbed Gerhard with a sharp object as the noble had a small knife on his key ring.
The Chief Justice confirmed there is no dispute that Gerhard was indeed stabbed by a sharp object.
He said in Gerhard's evidence he said there were stab wounds to his chest, and also to his lower part including his right stomach and abdomen. Although Gerhard said he had these wounds, the doctor only gave evidence of two wounds and did not refer to the other wounds.
The prosecution said that this was because the doctor concentrated on the serious wounds.
The Chief Justice pointed out to the jurors that it was to them to determine this and what they make of the evidence.
In addition, the pocket-knife was never found and Tangipa claimed he only noticed it missing the next day.
Defence
The defence called two witnesses namely Kafa Ulakai who was with the noble on the night and Maka 'Ulu'ave who was already inside the hotel.
In evidence Kafa said that one of the party, Tina, remained in the car to listen to the radio when he and the noble went up to the hotel. The defence then submitted that the key ring must have then been in the ignition for the radio for Tina, a to listen to the radio.
The prosecution said Gerhard was not involved in a second fight, whereas a defence witness Maka said there was second fight in the hotel's toilet involving the victim.
The prosecution said Maka's evidence was false and that he was not in the hotel and made his evidence up. But Edwards invited the jury to believe what Maka said because Maka was a friend of Gerhard and his father Carl Sanft.
"What you make of Maka's evidence is up to you," said the Chief Justice.
Blood
Defence witness Kafa also told the court that after the fight Gerhard was pulled to the reception area where she was standing and she did not see any blood on Gerhard's t-shirt and would have noticed blood because his t-shit was white or off white.
She added that Gerhard was restless and went to another side of the bar and she saw no blood on that time Tangipa left the bar.
In summary the Crown relied on the noble's statement to the police and that the wound was caused by a sharp object and that Tangipa had causing his injury.
The Crown invited you to draw on the circumstantial evidence that only Tangipa inflicted the wounds on Gerhard while Edwards on the other hand said that the victim himself did not say on oath that Tangipa stabbed him and that not one of the 30 people in the bar came forward to say that they witnessed the stabbing.
The Chief Justice also pointed out the fact that unfortunately in this case both the victim and the defendant were intoxicated.
The jury trial has been since sitting since May 24, 2010.