Rex v Po'uli [2026] TOSC 11; CR-VAV 1 of 2025 (10 February 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY
CR- VAV 1 of 2025

BETWEEN:

REX
Prosecution

AND:

LOPETI LYDEN PO’ULI

Defendant

SENTENCING REMARKS

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE TUPOU KC
To: Mr L Vaea for the Prosecution
Mr S. Vaipulu for the Accused
Date: 10 February 2026

The proceedings

1. On 10 November 2025, the Defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm contrary to section 106(1) and 2(a) of the Criminal Offences Act and elected a trial by jury.
2. On 19 November 2025, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict on the charge and the Defendant appears from the court in Vava’u for sentencing this morning.

The offending

3. The Defendant, 19-year-old, Lopeti Lyden Po’uli (referred to hereafter as “Po’uli”) of Talau, Vava’u was at the Mohetaha Kava Club on the evening of 14 December 2025. The complainant, 72-year-old Sione Havea Fanua (referred to hereafter as “Sione”) was also present.
4. On or about 14 December 2025, the Defendant, the complainant and others were drinking beer at the Mohetaha Kava Club. There was banter amongst those present that led to an altercation between the Defendant and the complainant.
5. The complainant left the Mohetaha Kava Club. When he reached the area of the Water Board and Governor’s office, he felt a punch from behind and saw it was the Defendant.
6. The Defendant punched him again causing him to fall to the ground. While he was on the ground, the Defendant proceeded to kick him in the abdomen until he lost consciousness.
7. The Defendant was discovered by a security guard from the Halaevalu Wharf and alerted the police. The Defendant was taken to the hospital where he was treated. The Defendant suffered internal bleeding in his liver and other organs from the injuries sustained in the attack by the Defendant.

Crown’s submissions

8. The Crown suggested the aggravating features of the offending were:
   • (i) the attack was unprovoked, following a minor verbal disagreement, the Accused pursued the victim and punched him from behind while the victim was walking away;
   • (ii) the attach involved multiple acts of violence even after the complainant fell to the ground;
   • (iii) the complainant was 72 years old and vulnerable;
   • (iv) the Defendant fled the scene and failed to offer assistance; and
   • (v) the injuries sustained were serious.
9. The Crown suggested the following as mitigating features:

(i) the Accused’s early guilty plea;

(ii) the Accused is a first-time offender; and

(iii) cooperation with the Police.

Sentencing Comparables

10. The Crown referred to the following comparable sentences:
    1. R v Loiti Tone [2012] CR 01 of 2012 - the defendant pled guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm. There were repeated kicks to the complainant’s head that resulted in serious facial injuries that included blindness in one eye and loss of teeth. The 50 year old complainant upon exiting a kava club on the night in question was pushed to the ground by the heavily intoxicated defendant and then kicked in the face and arm.

The court in this case recognized the English authorities that an attacker who uses shod feet to kick a victim is, in effect, using a weapon, in the same manner as if an object were held in the hand.

A starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment was fixed to demonstrate denunciation of senseless alcohol-fuelled violence. For the defendant’s early guilty plea, acknowledgment of accountability for his crime, his clean record and cooperation with the police, the starting point was reduced by 18 months. For his expressed remorse and good record the final 6 months of the 3 ½ year imprisonment sentence was suspended on conditions.

2. Rex v Tevita Matangi [2025] CR-VAV 2 of 2024 - the defendant was found guilty after trial of two counts of causing grievous bodily harm. The counts involved separate persons. The three had been consuming alcohol at a residence when an altercation arose between the defendant and complainant 1. The defendant obtained a machete and struck complainant 1, while attempting to stop the defendant complainant 2 was also struck with the machete.

Complainant 1 sustained a deep laceration measuring approximately 5 cm in depth and 12-15 cm in length to his right forearm. Several muscles, arteries, and veins were severed, with an estimated blood loss of 1 litre. Complainant 2 suffered a severe slash wound to his right arm, extending close to the humerus bone, resulting in loss of sensation at the wrist and complete loss of movement in the arm. He lost around 2 litres of blood.

A starting point of 6 ½ years’ imprisonment was set against the seriousness of the offending, the deliberate use of a dangerous weapon, and the serious and permanent injuries inflicted on complainant 1 and 7 ½ years’ imprisonment for complainant 2.

In mitigation, 12 months was deducted from the starting points and 12 months from resulting in final sentences of 5 ½ years for the offending against complainant 1 and 6 ½ years for complainant 2.

In considering the totality principle, 12 months of the lesser sentence was added to the head sentence to be served cumulatively, making the final sentence a total of 7 ½ years’ imprisonment years.

The final 3 years of the sentence was suspended in favour of rehabilitation and re-integration into society.

100. Rex v Latu [2024] CR 47 & 48 of 2024 - the two defendants, serving in the police force at the time were found guilty of causing serious bodily harm contrary to sections 107(1), 2(c), and 4 of the Criminal Offences Act.

The complainant was intoxicated at the time of the offence and was taken into custody. While in custody, an altercation occurred which resulted in the complainant being rendered unconscious when one of the officers administered a chokehold to control him? While the complainant was on the floor and unconscious the officers kicked his head, jaw and mouth. The complainant sustained multiple serious injuries, including fractures to both sides of the jaw, fractured teeth on the right side, and numbness to the left side of the jaw.

A starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment was fixed and lifted by 1 year for the breach of the society’s trust and expectation of safety and protection while in police custody and from police officers.

In mitigation, the Court took into account the Accused persons clean record, expressions of remorse, and their years of service in the Police Force and reduced the starting point by 12 months.

When considering suspension, the Court determined that a fully suspended sentence would be inappropriate given the gravity of the offending. However, the Court considered that both accused would benefit from rehabilitative interventions, including anger management, and would likely utilize the opportunity afforded by a partially suspended sentence and the final 12 months of their sentence was accordingly, suspended.

Victim Impact Report

11. The complainant because of his injuries is said to have lost the capacity to undertake any work in his plantation. Although the abdominal pain has gone his physical energy has not returned. Bearing no disregard to what the complainant suffered from his injuries, I have taken into account his age and the consequent decline in physical strength that entails.
12. The complainant informed that there was an offer of monetary gifts and request for forgiveness from the complainant and his family that was made to him prior the trial which he declined. Although he has no personal feelings towards the defendant, the complainant wished for the court to note that the defendant denied the allegations and entered a not guilty plea. He was happy to leave the decision for the court.
13. The Crown suggested a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment to be reduced by 12 months resulting in 4 years imprisonment with the final 6 months to be suspended for 1 year on appropriate conditions.

Submissions for the Defence

14. Counsel for the Defendant supported a fully suspended sentence on conditions to include community service. It was suggested that a fully suspended sentence was best suited to allow the Kava Club to help with the Defendant’s rehabilitation and allow him to “take further studies at Fokololo oe Hau vocational so he can have a better future”.

Pre-sentencing Report

15. The Defendant was 19 at the time of the offending. He resides with his adoptive family at Talau, Vava’u. He completed 4^th form at high school and then dropped out. He is healthy and his family are members of the Siasi Tonga Konisitutone.
16. The Defendant is a farmer growing kava and crops for commercial purposes. He makes approximately $500 weekly to support his family.
17. It is reported that the Defendant is remorseful and claims to have apologised to the Complainant and seeks the court’s mercy and leniency.
18. The Probation Officer rates the Defendant at the low end for risk of reoffending and proposes a fully suspended sentence.

Considerations

19. The maximum statutory penalty for causing harm to any person is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.
20. I consider the aggravating factors in this instant to include hostility and vengeful anger towards an elderly person. For a 19 year old to attack an unarmed, unaware 72-year-old man from behind and continue to attack him while on the ground helpless and to abandon him while visibly injured is culturally intolerable and inhumane. He is very fortunate that the defendant has survived with very little harm.
21. Having regard to the maximum statutory penalty, the aggravating factors, the submissions from the parties, the principles and sentences provided by the comparable cases relied on by the Crown, the principles of punishment, deterrence and to reflect the public interest in denouncing this type of vengeful aggression and alcohol fuelled violence, I set the starting point at 4 years’ imprisonment.
22. The Defendant admitted the offending to the Probation officer but maintained his position as to the site where it occurred despite the jury having found against him. Defence counsel accepted that his client offered an apology to the complainant before the trial. Under those circumstances, I consider the 19-year-old’s guilty plea was ill advised.
23. In light of that, the defendant’s expression of remorse, his clean record and the fortunate recovery of the complainant, I deduct 18 months from the starting point, resulting in a final sentence of 2 ½ months imprisonment.
24. On the question of suspension, I have considered submissions from both sides and the report from the Bailiff. The Crown proposes a partly suspended sentence while the Defence and Probation report supports a fully suspended sentence.
25. The established guiding principles on suspending a sentence are set out in Mo’unga v R [1998] Tonga LR 154. That the offender is young, has a previous good record, is likely to take the opportunity offered by the sentence to rehabilitate himself, where there is some diminution of culpability (of which there is none here) and where there has been cooperation with the authorities. It was said that a suspended sentence is intended to have a strong deterrent effect and if the defendant is incapable of responding to a deterrent, it should not be imposed.
26. I have considered the Defendant’s youth, his expressed remorse (albeit, late) his cooperation with the police with the police and the complainant’s full recovery and believe he will utilise any suspended portion of his sentence to rehabilitate himself.
27. In balancing the seriousness of the offending against the above features, in particular the defendant’s age and that a suspended sentence will have a strong deterrent effect on this defendant, I consider it appropriate to suspend his sentence in full on conditions.

Administrative Orders

28. Administratively, I order that paragraphs 21, 23 and 29 are amended whereby I reduce the starting point imposed at paragraph 21 to 4 years also reducing the final sentence under paragraphs 23 and 29.

Result

29. Lopeti Lyden Po’uli is convicted for causing grievous bodily harm and is sentenced to 2 ½ years’ imprisonment fully suspended for a period of 3 years, on condition that during the period of suspension, the Defendant is to:
    1. serve 180 hours of community service under the directions of the person responsible for such service in Vava’u,
    2. the Defendant is to attend the Magistrate Court in Vava’u for directions on community service,
    100. not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment,
    4. be placed on probation, and
    5. complete an alcohol and drugs awareness and anger management course (if available) in Vava’u.
30. The court hopes that you, Mr Po’uli will use the opportunity and leniency you receive today to change the course of your life for the better.
31. You must also understand that failure to comply with the above conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded in which case, you will be required to serve the full sentence imposed here today.
    

P. Tupou KC

Nuku’alofa: 10 FEBRUARY, 2026 JUDGE