R v Tomasi [2025] TOSC 83; CR 67 of 2025 (14 November 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY
CR 67 of 2025

REX
-V-
RODNEY ‘OFA KI TAFUNA TOMASI

JUDGEMENT

BEFORE: HON. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BISHOP KC
Appearances: Mrs T Vainikolo for the Crown Prosecution
Mr T Naufahu for the Defendant
Trial: 5 to 13 November 2025
Date: 14 November 2025

1. THE CHARGES & BACKGROUND

1. On 16 June 2025, this Defendant pleaded not guilty to a single count of Possession of an Illicit Drug [3,547.86 g of methamphetamine a class A illicit drug].
2. Prior to this trial commencing an application was made by the Prosecution for special measures in relation to an informant. This application was objected to and a hearing took place on 30 October 2025.
3. After hearing from parties, the Court granted the Crown’s application for a witness anonymity order for the informant in this matter.
   
   2. STANDARD OF PROOF
4. This is a criminal trial and the prosecution must establish to the criminal standard first that the Defendant was in possession of the drug in question and second that it was in fact the illicit drug allegedly, methamphetamine, and third that he knew that the methamphetamine was in the bag of sugar which he transferred from the informant’s car to his own.
5. The criminal standard means that the prosecution must prove so that the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt or other words is sure that the allegation has been proved.
6. For reason which I will explain later in this judgement I have decided that the same criminal standard must apply to each of the ingredients necessary to prove the Count. In other words, the crown must satisfy me that the Defendant possessed the methamphetamine that he had no excuse to do so and that he did so knowingly and unlawfully.
7. No question of reasonable excuse arises here and possession in the sense of having custody of the bag of sugar containing the methamphetamine is undisputed, so the question is did the Defendant know what was in the sugar bag and if he did, only then can he be found guilty.
8. I must be satisfied so that I am sure that he did and I proceed on that basis.
   
   100. THE WITNESSES

1. Witnesses – Prosecution
   1. Sargeant Tu’amelie Fifita – informant’s handler, and Officer in Charge of this operation working with the informant and the work that was done in relation to this consignment and this Defendant.
   2. Caroline (a pseudonym) for the informant – began to work as an informant in February 2024, providing information to Police, was in contact with Ika ‘Ofa for work in relation to illicit drugs, picked up $3,000TOP from the Defendant on 28 October 2024 then dropped off the sack of sugar to the Defendant at the hospital on 13 December 2024.
   100. Sargeant Carsten Leveni – with Sargeant Fifita on 12 December 2025 briefing Deputy Commissioner Vailea in relation to the illicit drugs and obtained approval for a “controlled delivery.” On the evening of the same day, performed testing on two packages found inside a sack of sugar, in a consignment addressed to the informant. Both packages tested positive for methamphetamine. On 13 December 2025, he was present with the civilian operating the drone then once the drone lost visual, he proceeded to the scene at Mataki’eua. On 14 December 2025, he tested the packages found inside the sack of sugar that was found near the collision scene in Mataki’eua and confirmed that the contents were methamphetamine.
   4. TRG Officer Viliami Kailomani – front passenger seat of the second vehicle pursuing the Defendant, blocked the Defendant’s vehicle from behind and saw the Defendant’s vehicle accelerate towards Moala then saw Moala shoot at the vehicle as it swerved and turned left and drove away.
   5. TRG Officer Taniela Moala – front passenger of first vehicle, that overtook and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle at Pea. Announced “police with arms” and for the Defendant to turn off his engine but he did not comply. The Defendant accelerated towards his direction and in response he discharged his weapon and aimed at the engine of the Defendant’s vehicle.
   6. TRG Officer Sa’ili – also in the first vehicle that overtook and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle at Pea, and they pursued the Defendant to Mataki’eua where the gravel road created a lot of dust obstructing their view of the vehicle from time to time until they arrived at Mataki’eua.
   7. TRG Officer Sione Tonga - also in the first vehicle that overtook and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle at Pea, also confirms that the gravel road created a lot of dust during the pursuit. Eventually, the Defendant first arrived at Mataki’eua before this first police vehicle did and they found the Defendant’s vehicle inside the water area, then proceeded to screen the surrounding area in search of the Defendant before seizing the Defendant’s vehicle.
      
2. Witnesses – Defence
   1. The Defendant – dropped off his wife to Kolonga as she was feeling ill to her parents’ house, then proceeded to come into town to collect a voucher from Ministry of Finance. He is acquainted with Caroline and her husband, they both loaned and owe him money. Caroline contacted him that she has cash to give him as part of the loan payment plus items from a consignment she was receiving. He then waited to receive this from her and did not proceed to collect the voucher given he was expecting money from Caroline. Later that day, he met with Caroline at the hospital car park as he was already on his way home when she said she finally cleared the consignment and has the items. Once at the hospital carpark, she said she forgot the money and only had a sack of sugar left from the items in the consignment to give him. He took it and placed it in his vehicle then left. He was then suddenly stopped by police and without warning, was shot at by police, to which he responded by driving away and hiding in fear for his life. He made it to Mataki’eua area and proceeded to hide from police. The following Monday, he went to Central Police Station with his wife and turned himself in. He also referred to a search of his home on 3 May 2025 and alleged that police behaved aggressively.
   2. Oliva Fehoko – used to work as a procurement officer at Vaiola Hospital but resigned due to the charges that her husband is facing. On 13 December 2024, she woke up feeling sick and her husband dropped her off to Kolonga at her parents’ house. She then spoke to her husband over the phone later in the day where he confirmed that he was on his way home after she reminded him to buy a box of chicken for the weekend. After a while she tried to contact him again but could not get through. Later, police arrived at her parents’ house looking for the Defendant, took her phone then was then taken to two locations, their house and their other residence on their bush allotment for a search to be conducted. Eventually, police returned her phone so that she could contact the Defendant to turn himself in and was warned not to delete anything from the device. The following Monday, she went to Central Police Station with the Defendant where he turned himself in.
      
3. Rebuttal Witness – Prosecution
   1. Sargeant Tu’amelie Fifita – the search that occurred on 3 May 2025 at the Defendant’s residence resulted amongst other items, a green Samsung phone in a black phone cover and a navy-blue notebook with a pencil being found. On inspection of the Samsung phone after it was unlocked by the Defendant, he found in the trash folder of the phone’s gallery, a screenshot of a messenger conversation with an individual named Ika Ofa. The contents of the screenshot does not reveal any date of the conversation but the metadata of the screenshot itself states that it was taken on 28 March 2024. The navy-blue notebook contained figures beginning with 28 which is inferred by Sargeant Fifita to mean quantities in grams from 1 ounce in relation to illicit drugs, belonging to the Defendant.
      

4. THE EXHIBITS

9. The following exhibits were adduced by the Prosecution through the duration of the trial in support of their case;
   1. Exhibit 1: Court Book (274 pages)
   2. Exhibit 1(a): Supplementary Photos (16 pages)
   100. Exhibit 2: Video of custom’s storage
   4. Exhibit 3: Drone Footage on 13/12/2024
   5. Exhibit 4: Sack of Sugar
   6. Exhibit 5(a): Plastic Package (1 red mark)
   7. Exhibit 5(b): Plastic Package (3 red marks)
   8. Exhibit 6: Search List Report on 3/4/2025
   9. Exhibit 6(a): Translation of Search List Report on 3/4/2025
   10. Exhibit 7: Photographs of Search on 3/4/2025
   11. Exhibit 7(a): Translation of Exhibit 7, page 1.
   50. Exhibit 7(b): Green Samsung phone in a black cover
   13. Exhibit 7(c): Navy blue notebook & pencil
       
   5. CONSIDERATIONS
10. There are three additional matters in this case which call for comment.
11. First evidence has been given by an informant who has been given the pseudonym Caroline. She is a participating informant and indeed has been involved in drugs dealing for three or four years. Her role apparently was to clear the consignment in question at the customs port and deliver it to the next person in the chain.
12. In 2024 her residence was searched and she was apprehended and interviewed and no doubt was facing a very serious charge and a lengthy custodial sentence. But an arrangement was made whereby she would be given immunity if she testified in this case.
13. I am further advised by the prosecution that had no such immunity been in place, she would have been prosecuted for the offense for which she accepts guilt. It is always incumbent on a Court to treat the evidence of an accomplice with considerable caution and I do so here particularly since this is not a case of an informant repenting of her wayward ways and attempting to rehabilitate herself. This is a case of an informant bargaining her way out of a serious charge by giving evidence in another case as then unspecified but which would involve her performing the same role as in the case for which she was arrested.
14. In other words, she would participate in crime to detect another crime. I find this situation troubling and will approach her evidence with abundant caution, and although it is no longer a legal requirement, I will look for any evidence tending to support what she says.
    
15. The second matter is that is although the Defence has not been entirely consistent or indeed coherent, I apprehend that one of the matters urged on the Court is that this Defendant is entirely innocent and never had possession of any illicit drugs. The packages of methamphetamine found in the sugar bag had been planted there by the police before he acquired possession of them without his knowledge.
16. Alternatively, as submitted to the Court, this was a police plant where a different bag of sugar with the drugs inside was placed near the scene where he collided with a fence.
17. In other words that the police were involved in a conspiracy to implicate an innocent member of the public.
18. This of course is a serious allegation but there is no special deference accorded to police evidence or any other source of evidence. All are equal before the law and therefore the evidence of for example, on one hand the Police Commissioner and on the other a notorious criminal must be approached with the same impartiality and cold assessment.
19. The Court is not to be tempted into the view that police officers are honourable and that Defendants are usually not. On this view the word of a police officer would carry greater weight simply because of his position. It does not, it is viewed in the same way as any other evidence: is it credible? is it true? For the reason which I will explain I entirely reject the suggestion that the discovery of the package of methamphetamine was the result of a police plant.
    
20. The third matter is that at the end of his evidence in chief, the Defendant told me about a nocturnal visit by armed police officers to his property on 3 May 2025. He said that the raid was without ceremony that he and his wife were strip searched and that the police behaved aggressively.
21. During that search the Crown in rebuttal established that among the items found at the property were a considerable amount of money $17,850TOP or so which they seized as well as a phone and a notebook.
22. This incident is relevant in the following respect and the following respect only, it might and in my view does affect the credibility of the Defendant as I will explain when I consider the matter in more detail. It also provides a link between this Defendant and the alleged supplier of the methamphetamine based in the United States, Ika ‘Ofa and although it deals with matters outside the timescale of the indictment it does provide valuable evidence as to how the matters alleged are to be viewed by the Court.
    
    6. CROWN’S CASE
23. As a result of an arrangement made between the police in particular Sergeant Fifita and the informant, the police became aware of the importation of a barrel which would contain the illicit drugs in a sack of sugar.
24. Armed with this information and having been given permission by the Deputy Police Commissioner for a “controlled delivery”, the barrel was inspected and in particular the sack of sugar to see whether or not there was methamphetamine concealed inside. Two sealed packages in the sugar bag were found: one had three red marks and the other had one red mark.^[1]
25. The contents of the bags were tested at the scene by Sergeant Leveni and the result was that it comprised of methamphetamine.^[2]
    
26. The informant was allowed to pick up the barrel and take it home and remove the sugar sack (containing the drugs) and arrange to meet the Defendant at a hospital car park.
27. There is evidence of a prior meeting between Caroline with the Defendant in which it is the Crown’s case that $3,000TOP was passed from the Defendant to her to cover the costs of clearing the consignment.
28. There are photographs taken by the police which show both vehicles side by side outside at the nursing school car park at the hospital on 28 October 2025.^[3]
29. Part of the Defendant’s case was that it was not him who drove the car on that day but his wife but her evidence does not support that account. She said that she normally parks the vehicle near the security post near the emergency area or near the staff parking area which she marked “1” and “2” on a map.^[4] The nurses school car park is marked “3” by this witness on the map which makes it clear that those two locations were quite far from where the vehicle was parked alongside Caroline’s car and indeed the Defendant’s wife accepted that the location was in front of the nurses school.^[5]
30. I am therefore satisfied to the criminal standard that there was an exchange of money at that location and the Defendant lied about it.
31. There was a further rendezvous at a different part of the hospital near the mortuary on 13 December 2024. On this occasion, there is video evidence from a drone of the Defendant removing the sack of sugar from Caroline’s car and placing it in his own car and driving off.^[6]
32. Here, Caroline parked the car she was in next to that of the informant and the sugar sack was transferred to the Defendant who came out of his car went over to the informant car and took the bag and placed it inside his own vehicle.
33. This was captured by a drone footage and it is as plain as day that what I have just described can be seen which was played several times during this trial.^[7]
34. Putting it plainly there could not be more persuasive evidence of the allegation that the Defendant was given the sack of sugar in the remote part of a hospital car park and placed it in his own vehicle. And of course, this transfer is not disputed.
35. What happened next is disputed. He drove off. He was pursued by a marked police vehicle with sirens and blue lights. They overtook him and he stopped but then accelerated towards the pursing police car before speeding off and sped off. The police officers were armed and they used their weapons to shoot at the accelerating vehicle.
36. Now, in relation to the shooting, the police evidence on this aspect is not consistent. Some say that only one shot was fired, the others say as many as five. I am satisfied that they were a number of shots aimed at the vehicle and some of which may well have penetrated its interior particularly the window frame but I am also satisfied that these shots occurred after the Defendant had been stopped by the police.
37. Following the shots he sped away as quickly as he could whether that was because of his guilty knowledge of what was in the sugar sack or out of panic from the shots directed at him by police I cannot say.
38. I am prepared to accept that no adverse inference should be drawn because he drove off. It may be because of guilty knowledge or it may be because of panic. In any event the officers lost contact with the Defendant’s vehicle and when they next came across his car it had crashed into a fence and the Defendant was nowhere to be seen.
39. Nearby about 14m or so from the scene of the crash, a bag of sugar was discovered containing 2 packages identified as having one having three red spots and the other one red spot. This is the same sack of sugar and packages that was seen by Police and tested by them at the wharf and returned to the barrel on 12 December 2024.
40. It is absolutely clear that the bag of sugar which the police found and produced in evidence is the same bag of sugar that the police had examined at the wharf. This is so because each bears precisely the same serial number. There was some confusion during the evidence when Sergeant Fifita where he omitted a digit when he was asked to compare one with the other but both the photograph of the bag in the warehouse and that produced before me in Court makes it plain that the serial numbers are identical and that it is in fact the same bag.
41. This was not disputed by the Defence.
42. Now, as I said, the Defendant fled the scene and attempts to accost him were unsuccessful. The Police then searched the residence at Kolonga, where his wife was and then a residence at his rural plantation without success.
43. Oliva was told that they were looking for her husband who was not at the residence nor at the plantation. I emphasise nothing of an incriminating nature was discovered. Taking it shortly the Defendant with the encouragement of his wife surrendered to the police at about 6pm the following Monday. He exercised his right to remain silent and on this evidence the Prosecution says the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt
    
    7. DEFENCE CASE
44. The Defendant on the other hand say as I have already indicated that this was not so. He was an innocent party who just happened to receive a bag of sugar which contained packets of methamphetamine without his knowledge.
45. He was driving along in a state of innocence. A police car overtook him to which he then stopped. What happened next is in dispute, the Defendant says the reason why he then accelerated to run away is because police began shooting at his car; the police say that having stopped, he accelerated towards them at speed and in assessing the risk of harm to themselves and others they shot at his car and he responded by changing course and driving off.
46. I prefer the account given by the Police although I accept that the number of shots fired varies from witness to witness and I attribute that to the panic and stress of the occasion itself and the concentration of each officer to what he himself was doing.
47. He then sped off because for all he knew, those who were shooting at the car might shoot at him if he remained where he was. I do not find this account plausible. I accept that the police found the two packages of methamphetamine when they searched the barrel in the bag of sugar at the custom’s warehouse.
48. I am satisfied indeed it cannot sensibly be disputed that the Defendant received the bag of sugar in the hospital car park and placed it in his own vehicle. There is no doubt that he drove off with it and no doubt that when pursued by police he tried to escape.
49. Now if this was the act of an innocent man, I must ask myself why was it that he remained in hiding or at least without returning home for 2 to 3 days?
50. Surely the Court is entitled to say if an innocent man had been treated as he had been which necessitated him in crashing his vehicle and leaving behind his bag of sugar, surely an innocent driver would go as quickly as possible to the nearest police station or at least get in touch with the police and explain what was happening.
51. But he did not. He says he left the bag of sugar in the car and says that that he could not have removed the bag of sugar because at the time in question he was driving furiously in an attempt to escape with his life and could not have removed the bag of sugar, found by the Police later. I am unpersuaded by that argument.
52. It seems to me that the Defendant could easily have thrown out of his window the sugar as he was driving along and then it landed quite near the path which he took. There is no evidence of the time between the collision and the arrival of the police. It seems to me there was ample time for him to get rid of the sugar bag either by throwing it out of the window as he drove or by putting it there, when the vehicle eventually came to rest in the middle of the bush that some 500m away – a suggestion put by learned counsel which I accept but no particular accuracy can be relied on.
53. On the evidence, there seems to me to be two possibilities here. Either the Defendant threw the bag of sugar away as he was driving or after the vehicle came to a halt in the middle of the bush, he took the bag of sugar ran with it and deposited it where it was found and ran away. The alternative explanation that the police found the bag of sugar in the abandoned vehicle and placed it where it was found, I reject. It does not cohere with the payment of $3,000TOP which I have found occurred on 28 October 2024 at the hospital parking lot.
54. But there is further evidence, which casts doubt on the Defendant’s case that he was an innocent victim of a plan to frame him. There was evidence given by the informant, which I accept that the methamphetamine was organised from the United States by one Ika Ofa.
55. The Defendant says that he had never met this person and only became aware of his existence when he was studying the trial papers and although they both went to went to the same school Beulah Adventist School, he neither knows him or indeed met him.
56. I am satisfied that is untrue because on 3 May 2025, the police searched his property where a green Samsung phone was found to which Sergeant Fifita took possession of after it has been unlocked. Upon interrogating the photo gallery, in the trash folder was a screenshot of the messenger application conversation with Ika ‘Ofa.^[8]
57. This exhibit proves that they had been communication with Ika Ofa, the source of the drugs and this Defendant. It establishes in my view, a link between the Defendant and the original supplier, the Defendant and the informant, the informant and the supplier and the supplier and Defendant.
58. In addition, the search on 3 May 2025 also discovered a notebook where a number of figures appear one beneath the other and all beginning with 28 and the last figure in the table is 28.8 small “oz” or “28.80z” having looked at the matter quite closely I take the view that what it does say is 28.8oz which of course is the usual shorthand for ounces.
59. I take judicial notice that there are 28 grams in an ounce and since all the figures in the table begin 28 it seems to me that they refer to illicit drugs and that this Defendant was involved in their supply or at the very least was involved with them in some way.
60. It must be clearly understood that this does not in of itself prove a link between the allegation in the indictment and the Defendant but, its relevance goes to the credibility of the Defendant because his evidence says that he knew absolutely nothing about the notebook or its contents or that he knew Ika ‘Ofa.
61. I find that he was lying about his lack of knowledge of the contents of the notebook and in knowing Ika ‘Ofa and therefore is a matter I can take into account in assessing whether what he has said about other matters ought to be believed.
    
62. The Defendant himself gave evidence and of course I entirely take into account the strain a Defendant in a serious case goes through in giving evidence in his own defence.
63. But I did not find his evidence at all convincing. I found that his explanation that it was not him who parked the car when the exchange of money took place was implausible and in view of where the wife normally parks the vehicle.
64. There is no doubt that the bag of sugar was taken by him and placed into his car. I do not hold it against him that when he felt he was being shot at he was panicked to get away although his failure to surrender to the police or to seek help from a police station is not consistent with an innocent mind.
65. The assertion that he did not know the original supplier of the drugs, Ika Ofa, is disproved by what was found on his phone evident in Exhibit 7(a).
66. I have no doubt the totality of the evidence drives me to the view that he knew very well what was in the sugar bag, that he knew what he was doing when he paid the money to the informant, that he knew what was in the bag when he collected it at the hospital car park and that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
67. He knew the source of the drugs, he paid $3,000TOP, he knew what was in the bag of sugar when he collected it and when he realised the police were on his tail, crashed his car, threw the bag of sugar out whilst he was driving inside the water area or he removed the bag of sugar when it came to rest and dropped it in his haste to escape.
68. He then disappeared so far as the police and indeed his wife are concerned before he finally and sensibly gave himself up.
    
    8. FINAL RESULT
69. It follows that I am satisfied to the criminal standard that he is was in possession of the bag of sugar knowing that there was methamphetamine inside and accordingly is guilty of Count 1.
70. This is the verdict of the court.
    

NUKU’ALOFA		HON. MALCOLM BISHOP KC
14 November 2025		LORD CHIEF JUSTICE

---

^[1] Exhibit 1 – Court Book, p113.
^[2] Above n 2, p119 & 122.
^[3] Exhibit 1(a) p7 – 12.
^[4] Above n 3, p54.
^[5] Above n 4.
^[6] Exhibit 3.
^[7] Above n 6.
^[8] Exhibit 7(a).