PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Tonga

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Tonga >> 2021 >> [2021] TOSC 87

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

R v Fusikata [2021] TOSC 87; CR 313 of 2020 (4 June 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY


CR 313 of 2020


REX

-v-

VUNGA FUSIKATA


SENTENCING REMARKS


BEFORE: LORD CHIEF JUSTICE WHITTEN QC

Appearances: Ms ‘A. ‘Aholelei for the Prosecution

Mr S. Taione for the Defendant

Date: 4 June 2021


The charge

  1. After a three-day trial in April 2021, the Defendant was found guilty of one count of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to ss 106(1) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act.

The offending

  1. On or about 15 February 2020, the Defendant spent most of the night drinking alcohol with the victim. At one point, the victim went to take a shower. While the victim was in the shower, the Defendant punched him to the left side of his head causing the victim to fall to the ground, bleeding from his left eye. The Defendant continued punching the victim on the ground. The two then wrestled and fought out across the back yard of the victim’s property. They were eventually separated by one of the victim’s neighbours. However, the Defendant returned and continued fighting with the victim, where they ended up on the sidewalk at the front of the property. During that second bout of fighting, the Defendant punched the victim’s left eye, which had already been injured by the ‘king hit’ in the shower, several times in quick succession. Again, the two were eventually separated, this time by another neighbour, and the Defendant walked off towards his home. When questioned by police, the Defendant said he hit the victim because the victim swore at him. The Defendant’s evidence at trial that the fight was started by the victim throwing a first punch (about which the Defendant did not tell the police), which missed, or that he only hit the victim in his eye out of self-defence because the victim was strangling the Defendant, was rejected. Upon medical examination and surgery, the victim was found to have suffered blunt force trauma causing compressed force to the front of the eyeball which ruptured it allowing dark blood material or ‘vitreous’ to escape from inside the eye. According to the medical evidence, the victim suffered total and permanent blindness which cannot be restored through any procedure, in Tonga, or elsewhere.

Crown’s submissions

  1. The Crown submits the following as aggravating features:
  2. The Defendant has two previous convictions in the Magistrates Court in 2015 for housebreaking and theft and drunkenness, both of which were suspended on conditions.
  3. The only mitigating factor is the Defendant’s apology to the victim weeks later after the incident occurred.
  4. The Crown referred to the following comparable sentences:
  5. Here, the Crown submits the following sentence formulation:

Defendant’s submissions

  1. Mr Taione submitted, in summary, that:

Presentence report

  1. The Defendant is 34 years of age. He was raised by his father. He dropped out of school at age 16. In 2012, while living with a friend, he mingled with the wrong crowd. He is now married with two children, aged 2 and 1. He has been employed by Sunshine Rentals for the last 3 years, earning $150 per week, and is the sole provider for his family.
  2. In relation to the offending, the probation officer reported that the Defendant:
  3. The probation officer described the Defendant as being ‘no stranger to police and the courts’ and that he has ‘a long list of previous convictions records’. It is unclear whether that ‘long list’ corresponds with the previous convictions referred to in the Crown’s submissions above.

Starting point

  1. The statutory maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm is 10 years’ imprisonment.
  2. “Anyone who commits an offence of violence against another person runs a serious risk of immediate imprisonment. That will apply even to a first-time offender”: Hu’ahulu v Police [1994] Tonga LR 93, referred to in Toki, ibid.
  3. In addition to the comparable sentences referred to by the Crown, I have had regard to:[1]
  4. Having presided over the trial and “weighing up all of the objective and subjective circumstances, I can only conclude that the seriousness of the offence and all of the circumstances mean that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted”: Mohokoi [2008] TOLawRp 23.
  5. Here, the permanent loss of sight in one of the victim’s eyes and the resultant diminution in his capacity and enjoyment of life weighs heavily in deciding the appropriate starting point.
  6. Having regard to that, the seriousness of the offending, the statutory maximum and the range of comparable sentences considered above, I set a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment.

Mitigation

  1. The Crown’s submission that there are no mitigating features in favour of the Defendant is compelling. However, on account of his very belated (after verdict) admission of guilt and acceptance of responsibility, remorse and that this is his first conviction for violence, I will reduce the starting point by 6 months, resulting in a sentence of 4 ½ years’ imprisonment.

Suspension

  1. Having regard to the considerations for suspension discussed in Mo’unga [1998] Tonga LR 154 at 157, the Defendant is not particularly young; he does not have a clean record, although as recorded above, this appears to be his first conviction for serious violence; and he did not co-operate with the authorities. Against that, the offending was clearly fuelled by excessive alcohol consumption. It was also, initially at least, a spur of the moment act of abject foolishness with terrible and lasting consequences, not only for the victim, but now also for the Defendant and his family.
  2. Given the Defendant’s previous convictions in 2015 were the subject of suspended sentences, I am sceptical about his propensity for rehabilitation. However, since those last convictions, the Defendant has married and has two young children. It is a pity that their importance to him was not sufficient to have deterred him from the heavy drinking session and resulting outburst of serious violence on the night in question in this case. Nonetheless, while I cannot place much weight on the ‘breadwinner plea’,[2] I accept that the Defendant’s young family may provide some hope that he will take the opportunity for rehabilitation offered by a partially suspended sentence. It is also clear that the Defendant has a problem with alcohol, for which, he will be assisted by the supervision, support and education provided by appropriate conditions attaching to any suspension period.
  3. In all the circumstances and having regard to the balance to be struck in arriving at a result which meets the various sentencing requirements or objectives, including deterrence, I consider it appropriate to suspend the last 18 months of the sentence, on conditions as set out below.
  4. In the result, subject to compliance with those conditions, and any remissions granted while in prison, the Defendant will be required to serve 3 years in prison.

Result

  1. The Defendant is convicted of causing grievous bodily harm and is sentenced to 4 ½ years’ imprisonment.
  2. The final 18 months of the sentence are to be suspended, for a period of 2 years from the Defendant’s release from prison, on condition that during the said suspension period, the Defendant is to:
  3. Failure to comply with the above conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded, in which case, the Defendant will be required to serve the balance of his sentence.



NUKU’ALOFA
M. H. Whitten QC
4 June 2021
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE


[1] As referred to in R v Uasi [2021] TOSC 66, R v Helu [2021] TOSC 26 and R v Toutai'olepo [2020] TOSC 3.

[2] For the reasons explained, most recently, in R v Soane [2021] TOSC 42 at [26], referring to R v Wolfgramm [2020] TOSC 78 at [46] to [49].


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/to/cases/TOSC/2021/87.html