R v Toliseli [2026] TOSC 15; CR 149 of 2025 (4 February 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY

CR 149 of 2025

BETWEEN:

REX

- Prosecution
-

AND:

SAMISONI TOLISELI

Defendant

SENTENCE

BEFORE:

HON. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BISHOP KC

Appearances:

Mr K. Tamo’ua for the Prosecution

Mr V. Folaumahina for the Defendant

Date:

4 February, 2026

1. THE CHARGES
   

1. On 24 September 2025, the Defendant pleaded not guilty the following charges:
   1. Count 1: Causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 106(1) and (2)(c) of the Criminal Offences Act, when you did wilfully and without lawful justification cause grievous harm to Hu’avai Vaokakala, when you repeatedly struck her with a machete, causing lacerations to her head, flank and arm; and
      
   2. Count 2: Causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 106(1) and (2)(c) of the said Act, when you struck Pelelina Vaokakala with a machete, causing a deep laceration to her forearm.
      
2. On 26 November 2025, the Defendant was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charges.
   

2. PROSECUTION’S SUBMISSIONS
   

3. The Prosecution considered the aggravating factors for the Defendant to be:
   1. The degree and seriousness of the offence;
   2. The use of a weapon (machete);
   100. The disregard of the Complainant’s safety in their own home;
   4. The severity of the injuries sustained causing life threatening injuries to the Complainants; and
   5. The Defendant has similar previous convictions.
      
4. The mitigating features to be the Defendant’s:
   1. Guilty plea, albeit late; and
   2. Cooperation with the Police.
      
5. The Prosecution referred to the following relevant comparable sentences:
   1. Kali Malupo v Attorney General AC 26 of 2023 – The Appellant appealed against his sentence of 7 years imprisonment with the final 2 years suspended on conditions, for grievous bodily harm. He struck the Complainant’s head with a machete causing severe injuries. The appeal was allowed and he was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, with the final 3 years suspended on conditions. The Court of Appeal held at:

“[29] Cases involving the use of a machete top inflict grievous bodily harm are not uncommon in the Kingdom of Tonga. Starting points of 6 and a half years imprisonment have been approved by this Court particularly where there are permanent impairments...”

2. Rex v Tevita Matangi [2025] TOSC 4; CR-VAV 2 of 2024 – the Defendant was found guilty, after a contested trial, for two counts of grievous bodily harm when he struck the Complainants with a machete causing severe injuries. A starting point of 6 ½ years imprisonment was imposed for Count 1, reduced by 12 months for mitigation. For Count 2, a starting point of 7 ½ years was imposed, reduced by 12 months for mitigation. 12 months for Count 1 was to be served partially cumulative to Count 2. The final sentence was 7 ½ years imprisonment, with the final 3 years suspended on conditions.

100. R v Fakaanga CR 172 of 2021 (6 May 2022) – the Defendant pleaded guilty, after the Prosecution’s case in trial, to causing grievous bodily harm when he attacked the Complainant with a machete causing permanent injuries. A starting point of 7 ½ years imprisonment was imposed, reduced by 6 months for mitigation and the final 12 months suspended for two years on conditions.
     

6. The Prosecution’s sentencing formulation were that Count 1 should be the head sentence with a starting point of 7 years imprisonment. For the Defendant’s guilty plea, albeit late, one year reduction leaving a final starting point of 6 years imprisonment.
7. For Count 2, a starting point of 7 years imprisonment, reduced by one year for mitigation leaving a final starting point of 6 years imprisonment.
8. The Crown further submits that 2 years from Count 2 should be partially cumulative to Count 1 leaving the final sentence at 8 years imprisonment. The final 18 months to be suspended for 2 years on conditions.

100. DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS

9. The Defendant, through his Counsel, filed mitigation submissions on 2 February 2026 which I have read and considered together with the Pre-Sentence Report from the Probation Office.
   

4. DISCUSSION

10. You have pleaded guilty to two counts of causing grievous bodily harm. Both victims were women. One was a 51-year-old female with whom you were in a relationship and the second is her daughter aged 21.
11. After a night of heavy drinking with the First Complainant, an argument developed during which you attempted to strangle her before throwing her to the ground. Her daughter answered her cries for help.
12. You then grabbed a machete and swung it at the daughter who raised her right hand to shield herself and you struck her right hand causing her to fall to the ground. You then repeatedly struck the First Complainant with a machete causing injuries to her head, left hand and the side of her stomach.
13. When her daughter attempted to pull you away you turned on her with the machete and chased her away until her cries for help were answered by neighbours. The injuries these ladies suffered were severe and are fully set out in the medical report which I have read.
14. In short, the first Complainant suffered the following injuries:
    1. open depressed skull fracture of the frontal skull comminuted with intercranial bleeding;
    2. a deep laceration of the left flank;
    100. a comminuted fracture of the left distal humerus; and
    4. a fracture of the left first proximal fax with severe flexor tendon.
15. This required surgical intervention. In short, she suffered injury to her left arm which meant that she was unable to follow her craft of weaving Tongan mats and is deprived of any income.
16. It is to her credit that she has apparently forgiven you and has received communications from you and you have expressed your intention to buy her a vehicle or to give her money to recompense her suffering. This, I take into account as an indication of your remorse, but it cannot of course anyway reduce the seriousness of what you did.
17. The Second Complainant suffered a right mid midshaft upper ulnar fracture and as a result her right arm movement remains limited, the function and her forearm is angled that 140 to 150° rather than 180°. She is undertaking physiotherapy but experiences pain when using her affected arm.
18. The medical view is that this may continue for six months or longer but it is uncertain that her whether or not her arm will fully recover. This has had a negative effect on her work. She had been enrolled at the Tongan national university studying an advanced diploma in nursing and was in the final year of a three year program. Again, taking it shortly, she has had to suspend her training and when she returned has had to work extra time to catch up.
19. She, not surprisingly, still continues to have nightmares and sought help from counselling. She makes the following submission to the court: she hopes that the sentence can reflect a permanent condition as she feels as this is how she has to live for the rest of her life.
20. She is also anxious at the accused returning after serving your sentence. She describes you as a violent man with a bad temper and has not received an apology from you. You are a man of a violent disposition. You have been before the courts for separate occasions, assaults some of which occurred in a domestic setting. I must make it plain to you and everyone else in Tonga, assault on women particularly in a domestic situation will not be tolerated and strong punishment must follow.
    

5. STARTING POINT

21. In your case, I take Count 1 as the headcount and I impose 7 years imprisonment as the starting point considering as I have done the cases placed before me, each case however is to be determined on its own fact and it is not sensible to undertake a minute comparison of the injuries suffered here with those in other cases.
22. From the starting point of 7 years, I deduct 3 years as an acknowledgement of your apology and offer to make amends and the fact that the First Complainant has, to her credit, forgiven you. This leaves a final starting point of 4 years imprisonment.
23. I’ve considered whether it is possible to suspend part of your sentence having regard to the leading case of Mo’unga v R [1998] LR 154 at 158, you are not young and you have had several previous convictions. You did plead guilty albeit at a late stage. I have therefore concluded that the final 12 months of your sentence should be suspended for 3 years on the usual conditions. This means that on this count you will serve 3 years imprisonment with a suspension lasting 3 years.
24. As to Count 2 of the indictment in this case, the same starting point of 7 years imprisonment is indicated. I impose that sentence and note in this case; there is no apology made or accepted and your late guilty plea attracts a sentence and a discount of 2 years making the resulting sentence 5 years imprisonment.
25. Again, in your case I have considered whether or not to suspend part of your sentence and for the same reasons I’ve already indicated, I suspend 1 year which means that you will now serve 4 years imprisonment followed by suspension for 3 years.
26. The question arises is whether your sentence should be concurrent or consecutive. These were separate incidents although they occurred at the same time but the victims were different and the injuries sustained in each case were serious.
27. However, I must balance the question of totality if there is to be of rehabilitation. I have decided that 3 years from Count 2 should run consecutive to the sentence I have imposed in Count 1, and the remaining 1 year to be served concurrently to Count 1.
    

6. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

28. Administratively, I order that paragraphs 21and 23 are amended whereby I suspended 12 months from each Counts, respectively. I withdraw that suspension and it is to be imposed in the final result.
    

7. FINAL RESULT

29. For the above reasons, I sentence the Defendant as follows:
    1. Count 1 – four years imprisonment;
    2. Count 2 – five years imprisonment.
30. Three years from Count 2 is to be served consecutively to Count 1and the remaining 2 years to be served concurrently to Count 1.
31. This leaves a final sentence of seven years imprisonment. The final 2 years is suspended for 3 years on the following conditions:
    1. Not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment;
    2. Be placed on probation;
    100. Report to the Probation Office within 24 hours of his release;
    4. Complete courses in drug and alcohol awareness as directed by the Probation Officer; and
    5. Live where directed by the Probation Officer.
32. Failure to comply with any of the said 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

HON. MALCOLM BISHOP KC

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE

4 FEBRUARY 2026