|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Tonga |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY
CR119-142 of 2014
BETWEEN
REX
Prosecution
AND
1. VILIAMI SIALE
2. SUNGALU AFUHA'AMANGO
3. SITIVI TALIAI
4. KULISITOFA FIFITA
5. NAULIVOU TUPOU
6. SAMIU MANU
7. MAIKOLO D. F. MANU
8. SIONE MOLISI TIMANI
9. HAILENI TAUPAKI
10. VILIAMI HANITELI TAI
11. 'UTU FA'APOI
12. PENISIMANI FINAU
13. SIOFILISI VAIANGINA
14. PENISILA HOPONOA
15. SIOSAIA MAASI
16. HALOTI MAHE
17. SIONE WESLEY KAITU'U
18. SIOSAIA TAE
19. TU'IFUA NGALUAFE
20. 'ATUNAISA TANGATAEVAHA
21. SIOSIFA FINAUSULUNGA
22. VILI FANGUPO
23. SIOTAME TOKI
24. SAMUELA K. K. V. FINAU
Defendants
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CATO
SENTENCE
[1] The defendants appeared before me for sentencing commencing on the 10th April 2015. After hearing a day of submissions, I adjourned the sentence to the 16th April 2015 to enable me to consider their cases and impose sentences in a written judgment. I am indebted to Mr Lutui who provided a comprehensive memorandum of submissions for the Crown and Mr Fakahua and Mrs P Tupou who acted for all the defendants except Mr Pouono who acted for one defendant. This was a difficult assignment and I am grateful to all counsel for the practical way in which they approached their cases, both in arriving at agreements in relation to individual defendant's pleas with the Crown and in their approach to this sentencing. I am also appreciative of the work carried out by Probation officers in providing me with useful backgrounds on each defendant.
[2] In almost all the cases, the offending followed a home invasion although only some defendants were charged with house breaking. The principal defendant, Sungalu Afuha'amango, who I was also informed by Mr Lutui was one of the leaders, pleaded guilty to attempted serious arson as well as the offence of rioters damaging a building. There were two offenders, Siosifa Finau Sulunga and Sitivi Taliai, who pleaded guilty to causing Taniela Halahuni, one of the occupants of the residence, grievous bodily harm as well as charges of serious housebreaking and unlawful assembly. Three defendants 'Utu Fa'apoi, Viliami Siale and Haileni Taupaki pleaded guilty to causing serious body harm to Taniela Mahe, who was the son of the owner of the house, Lu'isa Mahe, and other charges. Most of the accused fell into the category of rioters damaging a building. This damage was extensive both to the exterior and interior of the house, and was estimated as to be about $100,000. A small number of offenders, although committed for trial to the Supreme Court, ultimately had their charges reduced so that they faced only a charge of simple housebreaking. They will be, as with the sentences imposed by Magistrates in the lower Court, discharged without conviction on payment of $200.00 as compensation to the owner of the house.
[3] The circumstances of this offending involve a dispute between students at Tupou College and Tonga College. There had been rivalry between the two schools for many years. In recent times, and indeed in probation reports presented in this case, certain of the defendants stated they had been victims of violence perpetrated on them by students of Tonga College. One defendant said that he had reported this to the police but nothing had come of it. As a consequence, a large number of students from Tupou College gathered in the evening of the 18th July, 2013, to effect retribution. There were about a hundred students, who embarked on this unlawful enterprise, many of whom had their cases disposed of in the Magistrates' court, and as I have said discharged without conviction on payment of compensation of $200.00. The others are much more serious, and sadly for all are first offenders, some will serve sentences of imprisonment and others will have suspended sentences imposed with conditions including lengthy sentences of community work.
[4] Hopefully, this judgment will assist to deter this kind of mindless violence in the future. I am aware that Magistrates have not infrequently encountered inter-school violence but this is the first time such extensive offending has featured in this Court to my knowledge. I consider that deterrent sentences must be imposed to emphasise not only to these offenders but to other students that conduct of this kind will not be tolerated in Tonga. Competitive sporting and academic rivalry between schools is laudable, but conduct of this kind, involving group violence, is not. Vigilante behaviour cannot be tolerated in any civilised society.
[5] Having said this, I am concerned here with young offenders who are first offenders. Fortunately for these defendants, Tongan sentencing options are sufficiently broad that in all but the most serious cases, sentences of imprisonment will be fully suspended, with substantial conditions as to community work, which is the retributive or punishment element of the sentences imposed. Conviction in itself may well adversely affect these students in various ways, in later life but that is an incident of their offending, for which they are all individually responsible.
[6] I record that, in each case, I am satisfied that there are aspects of each defendant's character or background that persuades me that consistently with Mo'unga principles, a defendant should have in all but the most serious cases, the benefit of a suspension of a sentence of imprisonment. I have also decided to fully suspend those sentences. I consider that the guilty pleas which had been entered expeditiously, co-operation with the police, the fact all are first offenders and youthful justify this approach. I record that my approach follows what was I regard as a careful submission by the Crown prosecutor, Mr Lutui. I have also arrived at this view after considering all the circumstances, independently of the Crown.
[7] I emphasise that were the defendants not to have pleaded guilty to the charges and been co-operative with the police, more could have been expected to have faced sentences of actual imprisonment. I also advance this warning. Should this Court encounter further cases of serious violence and vigilantism arising out of inter school rivalry sentences in the future the sentences imposed might well be more severe than those imposed today.
[8] AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
I now proceed to sentence each defendant.
ATTEMPTED SERIOUS ARSON
[9] This defendant, who was the leader, pleaded guilty to one count of attempted serious arson which carries a maximum sentence of seven and a half years and rioters damaging a building which carries a maximum sentence of seven years. I view the attempted serious arson charges in his case as extremely serious. After a blanket that had been set alight had been thrown into the room of the house by one of the group, the defendant opened and threw into the room a propane gas cylinder. This could have had disastrous consequences. Mercifully, it did not; but in my view this plainly premeditated act was in the upper level of serious attempted arson and I adopt a starting point of six and a half years.
[10] I have considered the defendant's circumstances. He is now aged 22. He is single, attended Tonga High School for three years then Tupou College. He went on to complete a four year course at the school as an electrician. He is panel beating, now. He is a member of the Mormon Church. The factors which defence counsel urge upon me in mitigation are his early guilty plea, his co-operation with the police and it seems his remorse. He is a first offender. I consider taking into account these subjective factors he should receive two years mitigation making his sentence on the arson charge four and half years. He is duly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four and half years on that count.
[11] I consider, however, that under Mo'unga he is deserving of some period of his sentence being suspended for his guilty plea, co-operation, youth, being a first offender and remorse. I accordingly order that the final 18 months of his sentence be suspended on the following conditions;
[12] On the charge of rioters damaging a building, he is sentenced to two years imprisonment. There was extensive damage caused to the house and he must bear responsibility for that. This sentence will be served concurrently with the attempted serious arson count and both sentences will be backdated to the date he was remanded in custody namely the 10thApril, 2015.
CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM
[13] His offending is also in the very serious category. After the canister had been thrown into the room, one of the occupants of the room Mr Halahuni attempted to escape and was hit by the defendant who threw a rock at him. He fell to the ground and was then hit about the head with a stick by the co-offender to the charge of causing grievous bodily harm, Sitivai Taliai. The victim was unconscious, taken to hospital and operated upon. He sustained a fracture to the skull. He was in hospital for a month. Mercifully, he seems to have fully recovered. The starting point for this offending, which carried a maximum sentence of 10 years, I fix also at 6 and half years reflecting the use of a weapon causing a skull fracture. Had the consequences caused permanent injury, the starting point would have been higher.
[14] I have read the probation report. The defendant is aged 20 and comes from a large but stable family. He has been working in a plantation assisting his father. He is attending Tupou College's technical class as a plumber. He represents the school at sports. He is active in the church and the youth choir conductor. He received favourable referee reports. He expressed remorse. That said he appeared to resile both in the report and at the hearing from his plea. He maintained he did not hit the victim with a rock. I note, however, that his plea was entered with counsel present, and I was told by Mr Lutui that he had admitted this act to the police in a written record of interview. I did not see any reason not to proceed with sentence. I view his apparent change of heart as one that could be taken to affect the quality of his assertion of remorse although I do not propose to do this. I reduce his sentence also by two years for his early guilty plea, cooperation, youthfulness, his being a first offender and apparent remorse. He is accordingly convicted and sentenced on the grievous bodily harm charge to four and half years imprisonment.
[15] I suspend however the final 21 months of his sentence because of the fact that he plainly qualifies within Mo'unga principles. I have allowed him a greater period than Mr Afa'amango because there is no suggestion he was a leader and because there was no permanent injury to the victim. I do so on the following conditions;
[16] He also pleaded guilty to serious housebreaking which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years and riotous assembly. On the housebreaking charge, he is convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment – this being a planned home invasion, this sentence to be served concurrently with the grievous bodily harm charge. On the riotous assembly charge, he is convicted and discharged. All sentences are backdated to the date of remand in custody namely the 10th April, 2015.
[17] He pleaded guilty to the same charges as his co-offender, Mr Sulunga. He used a weapon, namely a stick to the head, after the victim had fallen to the ground. He is aged 20. He comes from large family and has a good Church background. He had recently moved to Tupou College and would appear to have been affected by the school violence. He is now undertaking a cookery course at another technical institute. He also said he was remorseful, and I have read references concerning his undertaking of church activities and a more guarded reference from the technical institute. I see no reason to distinguish him from Mr Sulunga.
[18] Accordingly, he is convicted of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment the final 21 months of the sentence to be suspended on the following conditions;
[19] On the housebreaking charge, he is convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment – this being a planned home invasion, this sentence to be served concurrently with the grievous bodily harm charge. On the riotous assembly charge, he is convicted and discharged. All sentences are backdated to the date of remand in custody namely the 10th April, 2015.
CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY HARM
[20] The defendant pleaded guilty to riotous assembly, serious housebreaking and causing serious bodily harm. Shortly after, Mr Halahuni had been assaulted, the victim of this assault, Taniela Mahe, was also assaulted by the defendant, Halieni Taupaki, and Viliam Siale. Taniela Mahe suffered multiple scalp lacerations as a result of the assault. There was also an occipital scalp laceration down to the skull; however the skull was not fractured. He had been trying to escape from the room where the propane gas cylinder had been thrown. His mother was the owner of the residence. I adopt the count of causing serious bodily harm which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years as the charge on which I will impose the head sentence. Although this offending did not involve weapons, it was brutish group violence and followed a house invasion at night. The violence was clearly premeditated. The maximum sentence for this offence is five years. I consider that a four year starting point is appropriate, in this case.
[21] I have read the probation report. The offender is aged 20. He comes from a large family. He was a talented sportsman and represented the College in athletics. He had been described as a well behaved boy. He had, in 2013, enrolled at the college having been schooled elsewhere. He was enrolled in the second year of a technical course. He is a first offender, said to be remorseful, was cooperative with the authorities and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. References were also advanced from his town officer and from the Deputy Principal of his college attesting to his former good character. Like so many of these young men, he has let himself down as well as his supportive family and his school. However, I mitigate the starting point of 4 years by 18 months and I sentence him on the count of causing bodily harm to two and one half years imprisonment.
[22] Having considered whether I should partially or fully suspend his sentence and but, not without some reservation, I have decided taking into account he is a first offender and for all the other reasons supported by Mo'unga, to fully suspend his sentence. I have, however, decided to impose as part of his sentence 120 hours of community work, which is a very significant number of hours.
[23] The sentences I impose for the offence of causing serious bodily harm is two and one half years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
On the housebreaking, he is sentenced to two years imprisonment also fully suspended on the same terms to be served concurrently with the offence of causing serious bodily harm.
On the offence of riotous assembly, he is convicted and discharged
[24 He was a co-offender with Mr Fa'apoi. He is aged 22. His father is dead and he lives with his mother, who is seriously ill, and a member of his family who is married. The probation report indicates that he also assisted to shield Mrs Mahe from flying rocks. The Crown did not dispute this, and I give him credit by imposing a lesser number of hours of community work. He is studying as a plumber in the Technical Division of the school but in 2015, became a student in the Tourism and Hospitality Program. He was a very good athlete representing Tonga and winning the gold medal in the decathlon in 2014 at the Oceania Athletics Championship. He also excelled in rugby. A reference was written for him by the President of Tonga Athletics Association, and the Deputy Principal of Tupou College. He is also a member of a Church youth group.
[25]. Accordingly, the sentences passed upon him are;
causing serious bodily harm, two and one half years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
On the housebreaking, two years imprisonment also fully suspended on the same terms to be served concurrently with the offence of actual bodily harm.
On the offence of riotous assembly, I convict and discharge him.
[26] This defendant also pleaded guilty, co-operated with the authorities and appears remorseful. He is aged 20 comes from a large family. His father died and his mother remarried. He also enrolled in the technical division for 2 years and took carpentry. He also later enrolled in a separate technical school and was pursuing carpentry and is a member of a church. Like others of the offenders, he complains of violence at the hands of Tonga College boys. Whilst that may be so, self-help is not a reason for vigilante action. He also pleaded guilty to rioters damaging a building contrary to section 77(2) of the Criminal Offences Act. As such he was part of a group who caused or contributed to extensive damage in the sum of about a $100,000.
[27] The sentences I pass upon him are;
Causing serious bodily harm, two and one half years fully suspended on the following conditions;
On the rioters damaging a building offence, he is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment also fully suspended and concurrent with the serious bodily harm offending.
RIOTERS DAMAGING BUILDING
[28] In relation to other defendants who were charged with the offence of rioters damaging building of which the maximum sentence is seven years, I consider that because the damage was extensive ($100,000) premeditated, both internal and external to a private dwelling a starting point of three and half years imprisonment must be imposed to reflect the seriousness of this offending. Other factors which cause me to impose a reasonably substantial starting point is that the offending involved concerted activity by a large group of young men, and at night. Such conduct must receive a response which sends a deterrent message that this cannot be tolerated and must be protective of society. The offending must have been very frightening for the occupants involving both external and internal damage, the throwing of rocks to break windows and to destroy property.
[29] However, again I have examined the circumstances of each offender, and having entered guilty pleas, been co-operative with the police, been remorseful, having attended as with others counselling courses, and being first offenders, I have determined to mitigate the starting point by 18 months imprisonment. The end result for each offender is a sentence of two years imprisonment.
[3o] I have, however, decided to fully suspend these sentences. This was consistent with the approach of the Crown and I have decided independently that this approach is appropriate. Each defendant will have to perform a substantial amount of community work as a punitive element of the sentence.
[31] I now proceed to consider the individual circumstances and impose sentence on these defendants.
[32] He is aged 19 and still attends Tupou College. He lives at home with his parents. He like most of these young men freely admitted involvement as a reprisal. He likes sport and physical activity. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, he is a first offender, and was co-operative with police. Like others, he spent a short period in custody in the initial stages of the inquiry. He used a stick to inflict internal damage to the building.
[33] The sentence imposed upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[34] He is aged 21. He lives with relatives in Tonga. His parents have migrated to the United States. He belongs to a Church. He has had an unstable upbringing and has had to change homes frequently. Like others, he blames peer pressure for his actions. He participates in church youth and in community activities according to his Town Clerk. His church speaks highly of him. His educational attainment is unremarkable. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police. He used a stick to cause damage to windows. He tried to stop some of the damage and this is accepted by the Crown. He also will have part of his sentence of community hours reduced, as a consequence.
[35] The sentence I impose upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[36] He is aged 18 and his mother says is a well- behaved son. He is helpful in the plantation. He is in his second year at Tupou College and is studying electrical appliances. He boards at the school. Positive references were supplied by the Town Clerk and his Minister. Peer pressure he gave as his explanation. He smashed items in the building and by his actions aided and abetted others. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[37] The sentence I impose upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[38] He is aged 18. His parents were overseas and he was staying with other relatives at the time. He now lives with his father who has returned to Tonga. He is studying fitting and machine work at the Fokololo Institute, and has potential. He is actively involved in church activities, and references were supplied for him. He was involved in damaging the building internally. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[39] The sentence I impose upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[40] The defendant is aged 22. He is a US citizen and hopes to enter Army training shortly overseas, and has delayed this as a consequence of these proceedings. He was brought up by his maternal aunt, who described him as getting into trouble at Tupou College. He had, it seems, been assaulted previously by a group from Tonga College, and had reported this to police. Nothing came of it. He became involved it seems as a consequence in this activity. He is remorseful. He admitted to smashing and damaging the building. References were advanced on his behalf concerning his rugby involvement, youth development, both in his village and religious community. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[41] The sentence I pass upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[42] This defendant is aged 22. His parents have died. He attended Tupou College in 2011, having gone to Tupou High School until then. He was taking an electrical course at Tupou College. He was living with his eldest sister. He belonged to a Church. He entered the house and caused damage. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[43] The sentence I pass upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[44] He comes from large family. He was living with his uncle at the time of these offences. He now lives in Eua with his father. He was in technical carpentry classes at Tupou College. He is described as very helpful at home and in carpentry. He was involved in rioting and damage of the building. Probation has indicated they are willing to make arrangements for him to perform his community work in Eua. Promising references were filed on his behalf.
[45] The sentence I impose upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[46] He is aged 22. He comes from a very large family he is married but separated. He did electrical training at Tupou College technical School in 2013. He is unemployed but helps his father in plantation work. He was one of the older students involved. He was involved also in entering and damaging the building. References were filed on his behalf indicating that he is actively involved in community work from his town officer. His father, a Minister, wrote of his involvement in the Church as a choir conductor. Like the others, he is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[47] The sentence I pass upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[48] He is also convicted upon a charge of serious housebreaking and I sentence him on this to 2 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with the rioters damaging a building offending and suspended on the same terms.
[49] The defendant is aged 21. He comes from a large family. He was taking a three year course in electrical studies in the Technical Division of the College. He finished school in 2013 and works for a bakery. He lives with his parents. He belongs to a church. He likes sport. He admitted to throwing stones at the building damaging windows and doors, and furniture. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[50] The defendant is sentenced for rioters damaging a building to two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[51] This defendant did not appear for a probation report. He is aged 18 and was in the 6th Form at Tupou College. Further, he was employed during vacation, by the Ministry of Agriculture in frozen exports. He has on holiday in Ha'apai assisted at a Youth Congress and after the hurricane in distribution projects. He was involved in smashing windows before entering the house. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[52] The defendant is sentenced for a rioter damaging a building to two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[53] He was aged 20. He comes from a family of four. His father has died. His mother looks after him and the offending comes as a surprise. He struggled at school and continued with technical classes. He attends church activities. He is helpful at home with domestic duties. He also received a good reference from his town officer and his Minister. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[54] I sentence him for the offence of rioters damaging a building to two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[55] The defendant is aged 23. He comes from large family. His father is a Minister. He is a part time student at Tonga Tertiary Institute studying computer and music. He left Tupou College after this incident. He reports fighting with boys from Tonga College. He is unemployed. He relies on his parents. He said he was influenced by peer relations to become involved in this offending. This is a common theme. He threw stones at the house. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[56] I sentence him for the offence of rioters damaging a building to two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[57] He is aged 19. He was brought up on Eua. He lives with his mother. His mother was surprised at his offending. The defendant moved from 'Eua to Tupou College but did not succeed academically and joined the technical class. His mother has taken him back to Eua. He looks after the family plantation whilst his father and brother go fruit picking in Australia and attends to domestic duties. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police. He also has good references from the town officer, and a church leader.
[58] I sentence him on the offence of rioters damaging a building to two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
Like another offender from Eua, I do not require him to undergo a life skills course.
[59] He is aged 22. He comes from a very large family. He was married in 2014 and had a child recently. He was regarded as a well behaved boy and comes from a good church background. He did not achieve at Tupou College and went on to Form 7 before becoming involved in this activity. He is unemployed and assists in plantation work. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police. He also has good references from a church leader indicating he is in the first stages of being a preacher. He is secretary of the Youth choir.
[60] I sentence him for the offence of rioters damaging a building to two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
[61] He did not attend for a probation report but his counsel was able to provide information on his background. He had entered training as a welder and had entered the Ministry of Works having been at Tupou College in 2013. His father was a police officer. He was the youngest of three children. He had assisted to set up scholarships since the offending. He used sticks to damage parts of the internal building. He is remorseful, and was co-operative with police, he is a first offender, and pleaded guilty to this charge.
[62] The sentence I impose upon him for rioters damaging a building is two years imprisonment fully suspended on the following conditions;
SIMPLE HOUSEBREAKING
[63] He is aged 18 (16 at the time of the offending). He comes from a large family. His father is a Minister. He went into the house with I am told a piece of wood, and withdrew when he saw Mrs Mahe. He had been at Tonga High School. He went to Tupou College in form 5. He is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police. He was also supplied with references from his church and school.
[64] He went out of peer pressure to the house. He was charged only with simple housebreaking which carries a maximum of three years imprisonment. I order that he be discharged without conviction upon payment of $200 compensation to the owner of the house, Kepueli Ioane.
[65] The accused in this case aged 19 now, was charged with simple housebreaking. He was not involved in any of the violence. This has a maximum of three years imprisonment. He was born in New Zealand and came to Tonga at Form 7 level as a cultural matter. He boarded at Tupou College. He is currently studying at Unitech in Auckland. He said it was challenging for him and he was influenced by peers at his new school. Mr Pouono appeared for him and submitted he should be discharged without conviction as were others in similar circumstances in the lower court on payment of compensation to the owner of the house. Mr Lutui did not oppose the application in this case. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police.
[66] The sentence I impose on the simple housebreaking is that the defendant is discharged without conviction and is to pay compensation of $200.00 forthwith which on receipt is to be paid forthwith to the owner of the house, Kepueli Ioane.
[67] He was charged with simple housebreaking. He is aged 20. He was fostered by paternal relatives. He belongs to a church. He is involved in youth and Church activities. He left the technical division in 2013 and wants to join the Army. He did not participate in any of the activities involving damage. The defendant is remorseful, pleaded guilty, is a first offender, and was co-operative with police. I have also been supplied with references from the Town Clerk and his church relating to his good character and his support of the Mo'unga 'Olive School and his music talents.
[68] I propose to sentence him, as I have with others involved in simple housebreaking, by a discharge without conviction on the condition he pay $200.00 to Court immediately to be paid to the owner of the house, Kepueli Ioane.
[69] I give the following warning. All defendants who have received suspended sentences must abide strictly by the terms of their suspension including performing community work when and where requested to do so by probation officers, and life skill courses. A failure to do so will mean that warrants will be issued for their arrest and they may well be recalled to carry out the sentences of imprisonment imposed.
[70] Community work must be performed when and where directed to do so by probation and completed as soon as possible. Community work has a priority over any other personal, social, sporting or cultural commitment.
J U D G E
16 APRIL 2015
NUKU'ALOFA:
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/to/cases/TOSC/2015/13.html