You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
Supreme Court of Tonga >>
2021 >>
[2021] TOSC 152
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
R v Pouono [2021] TOSC 152; CR 60 of 2021 (31 August 2021)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY
CR 60 of 2021
REX
-v-
Sione POUONO
SENTENCING REMARKS
BEFORE : THE HONOURABLE COOPER J
Counsel : Mr. ‘I. Finau for the Prosecution
Defendant in person
Date of sentence : 31 August 2021
- Mr. Pouono pleaded guilty to a single count of serious causing bodily harm, contrary to section 107 (1) (2) (c) Criminal Offences
Act. . It relates to the events of 8th November 2020.
- On that day at approximately 2300 hrs the defendant was hitchhiking from Lapaha when the complainant, Mr. Viliami 'Esei Moala, drove
past and gave him a lift agreeing to drop Mr. Pouono at the tax allotment that Mr. Moala’s family owned.
- They made their way there and an arrangement was made for Mr. Pouono’s parents to come and fetch him.
- When the defendant’s parents arrived it was so close to the midnight curfew they all slept in their respective vehicles, Mr.
Pouono in Viliami 'Esei Moala’s with Mr. Moala.
- The next morning, inexplicably, the defendant beat sleeping Mr. Viliami Moala on the head with a hammer, knocking him out then striking
him again when he regained consciousness, despite the victim begging for mercy.
- The defendant then refused Mr. Moala’s entreaties to take him to hospital and threatened to throw Mr. Moala in the sea.
- Mr. Moala escaped and ran to Mr. Pouono’s parent’s car and they took him to hospital.
- There he was examined and found to have multiple lacerations to the back of his neck but no fractures.
- The defendant was later arrested at the allotment and the hammer recovered.
- He declined to give an interview with police.
- A pre sentence report has been completed and I have read that and taken everything into considerations.
- Some of the essential points are that the victim has made a full recovery; that Mr. Pouono himself had a very unstable start in life
being introduced to class A drugs in his home environment and this led to his behaviour deteriorating into a cycle of criminality.
- He faced proceedings for methamphetamine and cannabis possession 285/2020, was granted bail and four days later, on 7th November 2020 got into a drunken fight whereby he armed himself, attacked his victim to his face with that knife cutting his nose
and then severing the victim’s right index finger.
- It is to be noted that the instant case relates to an attack the very next day, the 8th November 2020.
- Again it was premeditated; a weapon was used; the victim’s head was targeted; and in this case the victim was defenceless as
he was asleep; Mr. Pouono was on police bail at the time.
- The defendant would not explain to the Probation officer why he had attacked the victim and prevaricated when asked to justify his
actions.
- When I turn to consider my sentence I take into account all the factors I have set out and the whole of the pre-sentence report.
- I take into account that Mr. Pouono did enter a guilty plea, that it came on the morning of trial; but that he did not have the benefit
of legal representation.
- Mon 21st June this year Lord Chief Justice Whitten QC sentenced Mr. Pouono in relation to the drug case CR 285/2020[1] as well as two counts of grievous bodily harm contrary to section 106 (1), 2 (b) and 2 (c) Criminal Offences Act, CR 59/2021, in
respect of the knife attack.
- Mr. Pouono was sentenced to 4 ½ years’ imprisonment for the knife attack (a total of 5 years with the his sentence for
the drug offences consecutive to CR 59/2021, 3 years to be served and the last 2 suspended on conditions).
- Looking at the overall pattern of offending and Mr. Pouono’s background, family circumstances and his decline into drink and
drug use, it is a stark fact that the hammer attack on 8th of November last was part of the deteriorating life he was leading at this time.
- The maximum sentence this offence carries is one of 5 years’ imprisonment.
- I have considered the case of R v Lavelua 2018 CR 105/2018, an offence of serious causing bodily harm. That case involved a sustained attack to the face of the victim, no weapon was used as
was here, but there the victim lost a tooth and had serious bruising inflicted to him.
- Chief Justice Paulsen considered that a starting point of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment was appropriate.
- I have gone on to consider R v Talau CR 31/2021, an offence of serious causing bodily harm, punching that caused a cut to the right side of the head and fractured tooth.
Justice Niu considered a starting point of 4 years was merited.
- I have also considered (b) Hu’ahulu & Anor v Police [1994] Tonga LR93 where 2 men attacked another man and injured him with a broken bottle thrusted into his face and with a stone also
struck at his face. The one who used the stone was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, and the one who used the broken bottle was
sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
- This latter case I do not feel assists, partly in that it is too old and the use of the broken bottle to the face is a very different
attack in my view.
- Weighing up the sentence ranges between R v Lavelua 2018 and R v Talau CR 31/2021 I consider that the appropriate sentence is one of 3 years’ imprisonment. Because of the guilty plea a discount
in his sentence is merited.
- I follow the formula I rigidly adhere to, so as to provide consistency and certainty for defendants. An early guilty plea attracts
a discount of 30% and then a sliding scale with a plea at the first day of trial attracting a 10% discount.
- I pause to note that there will be some offences that are too serious to attract a discount that significant discount despite an early
guilty plea, or indeed where a defendant has been caught red handed a discount would not be appropriate.
- That is not the situation here and I return to the formula I have set out.
- His guilty plea will attract a discount of 10%, that is to say 3 ½ months, rounding it off.
- That makes a sentence of 32 ½ months.
- But, following the consideration and rational of R v Vi [2021] TOSC 91 and recognising his upbringing and that this offence was part of a continued course of conduct over some days, I come to the view
that it is right that this sentence should be concurrent to that passed on 21st June this year by Lord Chief Justice Whitten QC.
- That sentence has attached to it conditions upon his release and I do not alter or add to those.
NUKU’ALOFA N. J. Cooper
31 August 2021 J U D G E
[1] Possession 0.08 methamphetamine and possession 0.38 g Cannabis
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/to/cases/TOSC/2021/152.html