IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY

CR 114-116/2023

REX
-v-

Siosaia TAULAHI a.k.a MIKI
Tevita PASI

Sentencing remarks

BEFORE :	THE HONOURABLE COOPER J
Counsel :	Miss Kafa for the Crown.
	Both defendants were unrepresented.
Date of :	16 MAY 2024

THESE ARE THE FULL SENTENCING REMARKS REGARDING BOTH DEFENDANTS, ALBEIT MR. TAULAHI WAS SENTENCED ON 28 MARCH 2024

ORDER OF : 			COOPER J

DATE OF ORDERS :		16 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1.	Mr. Taulahi is sentenced to 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, the last 2 years suspended for 2 years on conditions.
2.	Mr. Pasi is sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, the last 2 years suspended for 2 years on conditions.
3.	Both their sentences be back-dated to the date of their first remand. 	
REASONS 

1.	On 12 December 2022, Ms. Milika Pamana, the Manager of the Tonga National Museum, arrived at work to find there had been a break in.
2.	The rear doors of the museum had been forced open.
3.	She took an inventory of the exhibits that had been stolen and identified 58 items were missing:

Quantity	Item	Unit value	Total value	
TNM Collection (22)	
1	Hikule’o – ivory figure	10,000.00	10,000.00	
1	Kato mosikaka	5,000.00	5,000.00	
1	Kato kafa lalanga fakamosikaka	5,000.00	5,000.00	
2 	‘Oa fakaono	1,000.00	2,000.00	
3 	‘Oa decorated with coconut shells 	500	1,500.00	
1	Kato maeakafa o Meghan	10,000.00	10,000.00	
1	Kato tu’aniu (ladies handbag)	800.00	800.00	
1	Mabe pearl wall hanging	700.00	700.00	
10	Lolo tuitui 30mls bottles	20.00	200.00	
1	Hele ta – sword fish (small size)	100.00	100.00	
Private Collection (6)	
1	Kiekie lafo	250.00	250.00	
1	Kiekie fau, teuteu nge’esi niu	150.00	150.00	
1	Ladies handbag (wicker woven style, 70s-80s)	1,500.00	1,500.00	
1	Kato alu (large size)	3,500.00	3,500.00	
1	Kato alu (small size – late 1900s)	5,000.00	5,000.00	
1	Kato maeakafa (toho)	8,000.00	8,000.00	
Aleamotu’a Collection (30)	
Fala		
1	Fanakio Uangokumi	15,000.00	15,000.00	
Ta’ovala (16)		
2	Tu’oua Tonga	8,000.00	16,000.00	
1	Efu	8,000.00	8,000.00	
2	Falavala	8,000.00	16,000.00	
4	Fau	8,000.00	32,000.00	
2	Lokeha	5,000.00	5,000.00	
2	Fanakio	8,000.00	16,000.00	
1	Vala to’onga pikipiki	10,000.00	10,000.00	
1	Fau niti	1,500.00	1,500.00	
1	Faka’ahu	1,000.00	1,000.00	
Kafa (13)		
10	Kafa lou’ulu	5,000.00	50,000.00	
2	Kafa pulu	1,000.00	1,000.00	
1	Kafa fau	500.00	500.00	
		Total	231,700.00	

4.	In February 2023 Ms. Pamana became aware that the Facebook page of Roselyn Mafikaunanga Tofavaha, who lives in New Zealand, was advertising some of those stolen museum pieces for sale.
5.	When police investigated, they were informed that Mrs. Tofavaha and her husband Lataimuli Vaka had purchased those items from the Talamahu market for selling on in New Zealand.
6.	The next month by the police recovered one one ta’ovala and two kato.
7.	The investigation led police to Tevita Pasi and his wife. The information they received was that Tevita and Samoana Pasi had received the stolen handicrafts. When they went to the their residence, they recovered the following items of stolen property
One fish hook;
Four vesa pa’anga (pair)
One vesa pa’anga (only 1 pair found)
Two hina lolo tuitui haitelenisia (already used)
One kafa fi ‘uli’uli
One kafa kula fi moe lou’ulu
One kafa lou’ulu 
8.	On 31 March 2023, police arrested Siosaia Taulahi together with Soane ‘Anitoni.
9.	Both were interviewed by the police on 16 April 2023 and both admitted to breaking into the museum and stealing the handicrafts. They were charged with serious house breaking contrary to section 173(1)(b) and (5) of the Criminal Offences Act and theft, contrary to section 143(b) and 145(b) of the Criminal Offences Act.
10.	Mr. Pasi was interviewed by police on 17 April 2023. He admitted meeting with both his co-defendants, taking the stolen items from them in exchange for a gram of methamphetamine.
11.	He was consequently charged with handling the stolen goods contrary to section 148(1) of the Criminal Offences Act and supplying an illicit drug, contrary to section 4 (1) (a) (iv) Illicit Drugs Control Act.
Statutory Maximum sentences
12.	The penalty for Serious Housebreaking is provided in section 173(5) of the Criminal Offences Act. The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment. 
13.	The penalty for Theft is in section 145 (b) of the Criminal Offences Act. The maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment.
14.	Section 148(1) of the Criminal Offences Act provides “Any person who receives any property knowing or believing it to have been stolen ...which amount to a criminal offence is guilty of an offence and is liable to the same punishment as if he had committed theft”.
15.	The penalty for supplying a Class A drug of 1 gram or over, is a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding life or both. 
16.	During the course of their respective arraignment hearings, all three defendants pleaded guilty to all the counts they faced.

Crown’s sentencing submissions
MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FEATURES
17.	The Crown submits that the aggravating and mitigating features in this case are:

AGGRAVATING FEATURES
Siosaia Taulahi
(1)	The offending is serious. The total value of the items is substantial, being $231,700.00;
(2)	This was a break-in at a museum and the items belonged to various collections where the owners felt that their properties were being kept safe and are being preserved. The items that were stolen were very valuable and had sentimental value, hence it is kept in a museum;
(3)	The offending was done at night;
(4)	Most of the items were never recovered by the Police. The only items recovered are as mentioned in paragraphs 7, 11, and 17 of the Summary of Facts. There were also some items recovered but were not listed in paragraph 3 of the summary of facts. 

Tevita Pasi 
(1)	In addition to the above-mentioned, Tevita supplied 1 gram of meth to Siosaia and Soane in exchange for the items. Soane is a child, under 18 years old. 
(2)	Drugs are a huge issue in Tonga, supplying the drug is even more serious, and as seen in this case, it prompted Siosaia to commit these offenses, so that he may get drugs from Tevita. 

MITIGATING FEATURES
(1)	The Accused persons’ early guilty plea;
(2)	The Accused persons do not have previous convictions;
(3)	They cooperated with the Police. 

SENTENCING COMPARABLES
18.	The Crown submits the following cases in order to assist the Court in determining an appropriate sentence for the accused.
Cases relating to serious housebreaking
(1)	R v Akau [2021] TOSC 150 where the defendant broke into a store and stole goods valued at $21 ,044 whilst in custody. A starting point of 4 years and 6 months was set for the serious housebreaking charge and 3 years for theft. The final sentence imposed was 45 months imprisonment for the serious housebreaking and 30 months for the theft to be served concurrently with the serious house breaking sentence. 10 months was imposed for the escape from lawful custody charge. That sentence plus 28 months from the serious house breaking sentence were to be served cumulatively to a sentence that the Accused was currently serving. 8 months was given as time served which makes it a net sentence of 30 months imprisonment to commence after the current sentence;

(2)	R v Vaiangina [2022] TOSC 54 which involved serious housebreaking and theft of mats worth $22,800. For the seriousness of the offence, the amount involved and the defendant being a recidivism offender, a starting point of 5 years was set and increased by 1 year for the disrespect to the Monarch and targeting of the Royal Palace, resulting in a starting point of 6 years for the serious house breaking charge. A 3 years imprisonment was set as a starting point for theft. The final sentence was 6 years for serious house breaking and 3 years for theft. The suspended sentence in a Magistrates Court proceeding was rescinded and the final year of that sentence added to the head sentence making it a total of 7 years imprisonment. The final 2 years of the sentence is suspended for 3 years on conditions;

(3)	R v Ealelei [2019] TOSC 10 where the amount involved was $34,000. LCJ Paulsen opined that;
"It is a distressingly common offence committed in the main by young men.
It is a very serious problem in Tonga to which there must be a strong
response."
The starting point was 4 years for serious housebreaking and uplifted by 6 months for his recidivism and apparent lack of remorse. The final sentence was 4 years imprisonment for serious house breaking and 2 years and 6 months imprisonment for theft to be served concurrently with each other and with sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court. The last six months of the sentence is suspended on conditions;

(4)	R v Mahe [2021] TOSC 30 where the value of goods amounted to $34,000 whereby Justice Langi adopted the starting point in 'Ealelei, of 4 years and uplifted it by 1 year for the defendant's previous convictions involving 3 separate counts of housebreaking and theft between 2018 -2019 ending up with a total starting point of 5 years. The Accused was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for the theft to be served concurrently with the serious house breaking charge. 

(5)	R v Uasi and Anor, CR 104-105/2022 where the Accused persons broke into a house and stole money equivalent to over $60,000.00 TOP. A starting point of 5 years was set for the serious housebreaking and 3 years for theft. The starting point was reduced to 3 years and 4 months for serious housebreaking, and 2 years for theft, by way of mitigation. 

Cases relating to theft
(6)	LCJ Whitten has directed that where there are no specific precedents, for the purpose of sentencing, reference can be made to other property offence cases of similar value. (R v Malakai and ‘Ana Tu’itavuki)

(7)	Wall v R [2001] Tonga LR 238 – this was an appeal against sentence on several counts of embezzlement where the total value of money was $181,008.
Mitigation: early guilty plea, age and good character, less likely to re-offend. 
Stated at paragraph [20]“considering the amount, the period over which it occurred, and the appellant’s senior position of trust and the seriousness of the offending, a sentence not too far from the maximum may well be considered appropriate”.
He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with the final 12 months suspended for 2 years. 
CA quashed the sentence and imposed a sentence of 4 years with the final 12 months suspended for 2 years. 
(8)	 R v Bloomfield [2013] Tonga LR 165, the accused was convicted after trial of embezzling $204,033 from her employer. She had no convictions, was previously of good character and had strong community support. She was given some limited credit for a late expression of contrition. 
A starting point a period of imprisonment of five years, taking into account the large amount of money involved none of which has been accounted for, the damage she did to Forum Travel, the extent of her deception, and the involvement of her in others in her fraudulent scheme
She was sentenced to four years and four months imprisonment with the last 12 months suspended for two years.

(9)	R v Lauaki, CR35/2023
a.	The Accused pleaded guilty to a single count of theft of $144,660.00 from Luna’eva Enterprises Limited from January to September 2022.
b.	The Accused is 28 years old. She is a first-time offender. 
c.	The aggravating features in this case are – high value, over length of significant length of time; 9months, premeditation, serious breach of trust by employee, and the Court notes the prevalence of this type of crime. 
d.	A starting point of 4 years was set and increased to 5 years based on the aggravating feature. 
e.	The starting point is reduced by 6 months to reflect her youth and previous good character, resulting in a sentence of 4 ½ years imprisonment. 
f.	A further reduction of 16 months for her early guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 3 years and 2 months imprisonment. 
g.	The final sentence imposed is 3 years and 2 months imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended for 2 years on conditions. 
Case relating to supplying of drug
(10)	R v Taione, CR191/20
a.	The Accused was found guilty after trial for supplying 0.01 grams of cocaine.
b.	A starting point of 15 months imprisonment was set.
c.	There was no mitigating factors in this case.
d.	The final sentence was 15 months imprisonment, fully suspended on conditions. 
Vandalism of the Museum
19.	Upon the Court making further enquiries it became apparent there was evidence of ransacking or vandalism caused during the break in.
20.	Photographs of the scene showed that in five areas of the museum, graffiti tags were sprayed on the walls floor and a door, in one case using a marker pen.
21.	The museum was assisted by the Ministry of Tourism in restoring this damage. The cost of that to the Ministry was $1,067.94.
22.	Mr. Taulahi admitted this to police he caused the vandalism. 
Victim impact
23.	Ms. Pomana provided a statement dated 14 February 2024. She detailed how she found the museum, its door open and graffiti on the walls and floor on the morning 12 December 2022, when she came into work.
24.	She assisted police as best she could with the value of the items stolen. She noted that the stolen property was:
“traditional items/family heirlooms and individual items and because it is stored and displayed in the museum, it enhances their value.”
25.	She helped to clean the graffiti having lost items that came from her family and she had displayed at the museum.
“There is no say about the mental distress, the emotional distress, and the spiritual stress that I experienced since the day this despicable incident occurred, and that is one of the reasons why I do not wish to talk about what happened because I experience a lot of hurt ever since it happened. I am still scared going to the museum by myself, especially the room where the items were stored.”
26.	She feels keenly the loss of the artefacts, the loss of tradition and culture. She feels guilty of the people who leant their artifacts to the museum and put their trust in her.
27.	Lady Dowager Aleamotu’a was one of those donors and she lost significant amount of her family’s heirlooms in the break in. In her victim impact statement she stated this “
28.	“[She] wanted her items to be displayed at the museum because a lot of people found her traditional handicrafts and mats interesting. For her, it was to share knowledge about the Tongan crafts.”

Pre-sentence reports
29.	Mr. Taulahi is now 20 years old. He turned 21 on  28 March 2024. At the time of the offence he was 19 years old. He started out being a promising student at Toloa, but was expelled for violence. He is a member of the Free Wesleyan Church The Probation Officer’s impression is that Mr. Taulahi is influenced by older boys. 
30.	He told the Probation Officer the promise of being given 1 gram of methamphetamine was why he committed these offences.
31.	The report writer is of the view that he has capacity to rehabilitate;  his lack of previous convictions and his remorse and youth are all factors in his favour.
32.	I have also taken account of the accompanying references.
33.	Tevita Pasi is now 21 years old and was 20 at the time of the offending. He is of previous good character. He did not attend probation to arrange a pre-sentence report and none has been compiled as a consequence.
That said, the fact of his early guilty plea is itself a sign of remorse and a wish to rehabilitate and I take these factors into account.
Serious house breaking
34.	The museum was a soft target. It was also a place where people trusted their valuable heirlooms to be safe and where they wanted their culture to be shared and so endure.
35.	Breaking in and stealing these traditional handicrafts was a wicked and cynical thing to have done.
36.	The vandalism that Mr. Talulahi caused adds to this deeply offensive crime.
37.	I have no doubt that Mr. Pasi, the eldest, manipulated Mr. Talahi and he in turn Soane ‘Anitoni.
38.	The starting point I set for the breaking into the museum is, consistent with the approach of Whitten LCJ in R v Vaiangina; 4 years, reducing the starting point to reflect the lack of previous convictions in the instant case, in contrast with the case of R v Vaiangina. The starting point set to takes into account the targeting of a museum as in Vaiangina. 
39.	In setting that tariff I take into account the following:
•	loss to the community, and
•	the sentimental value of the heirlooms and associated the emotional distress caused to the individual donors.
40.	In the case of Mr. Taulahi, that starting point is increased to 5 years (60 months) to reflect the vandalism he caused; therefore, taking account of the appropriate discount of 30 %; 60 months reduced to 40.
Theft
41.	In respect of the theft of $231,700.00 worth of handicrafts I set a starting point of 4 years, which is 48 months when considering Wall v R and R v Bloomfield, above. 
42.	With the reduction for the guilty plea and previous good character, that becomes 34 months.
Mr. Taulahi
43.	He influenced Soane ‘Anitoni, in doing so manipulated a much younger boy to commit these offences. The vandalism of the museum was a terrible act. Some part of the sentence for the theft must be added to the sentence for the serious house breaking to mark the need for denunciation, punishment and deterrence for offences of  such gravity. 
44.	To the 40 months for count 1, I add a further 12 months from the sentence for the theft, which gives a sentence of 52 months, or in other words 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
45.	In adding 12 months from count 2 to make it cumulative with count 1, I have taken into account overall totality .

Suspension
46.	In keeping with the principles of Mo’unga v Rex [1998] Tonga LR 154, a portion of the sentence must be suspended given his youth, remorse and his good prospects of rehabilitation. 
47.	Whilst the Crown submitted 12 months be suspended, I note that Mr. Taulahi is of previous good character, his youth, references and recommendations in his pre-sentence report. These offences are so serious a custodial penalty must be imposed and one that cannot be wholly suspended, as the probation report submits. Though I have aimed to strike a balance in setting a two year period suspended for 2 years.
48.	Accordingly 2 years will suspended for 2 years on the following conditions :
I.	he report to probation within 48 hours of his release;
II.	that he is placed on probation
III.	he lives where directed, and
IV.	completes a life skills and drug awareness course.
49.	4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment (52months), the last 2 years suspended for 2 years.
50.	His sentence is backdated 14 February 2024 when first remanded.
Tevita Pasi
51.	For the offence of handling the stolen goods, I imposed a starting point of 4 years. So as to match the sentence for the theft of those same items passed on my Taulahi. 
52.	This I increase to 5 years (60 months) to reflect the fact that he manipulated two younger people to commit these offences, one of whom was a child of 14 years old.
53.	There needs to be a 30 % reduction to reflect his early guilty plea and previous good character, 60 months reduced to 40 months.
Supplying an illicit drug
54.	In their sentencing submissions the Crown have referred to R v Taione, above, and submitted:
Count 3, handling stolen goods: 	a sentence of 3 ½ years’ imprisonment.
Count 4 supplying an illicit drug:	17 months concurrent with count 3.
A final sentence of 3 ½ years the last 12 months suspended for 2 years on conditions.
55.	In making those submissions in respect of count 4 the Crown have.
56.	Soane ‘Anitoni’s date of birth is 19 March 2008.  Soane ‘Anitoni was 14 years old at the time Mr Pasi supplied him with 1 gram of methamphetamine, as set out in Crown’s sentencing submissions at paragraph 19, albeit the age of Soane is not alluded to therein. 
57.	In their sentencing submissions at paragraph 9 they submit the fact it was supply to a child should be treated as an aggravating factor.
58.	The Statutory maximum sentence for supplying a class A drug in the quantity of 1 gram or more to another, contrary to section 4 (1) (a) (iv) Illicit drugs control Act (the offence Mr. Pasi faces in count 4) is a sentence up to life imprisonment or a fine of up to $1,000,000.00 or both.
59.	The Crown’s submissions in respect of count 4 possibly overlook some crucial factors:
•	In R v Taione the quantity of drugs (cocaine) was 1 /100th the amount as in this case.
•	Cocaine possession/supply is considered slightly less grave an offence as that of with methamphetamine. 
•	R v Taione  was not a case of supply of a Class A drug to a child.
•	R v Taione CR 191/2020 was a case where the offence was committed on or before 2020.
•	The  offence in count 4 I am concerned with was committed in December 2022.
•	Critically , on 26 August 2021 section 5C Illicit drugs Control Act came into force. 
Section 5 C Illicit drugs Control Act
60.	It states
Offences involving children 

(1)	Any person who knowingly without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall lie on him – 

(a)  supplies an illicit drug to a child; 
(b)  administers an illicit drug to a child; 
(c)  compels a child to use an illicit drug; or 
(d) engages, employs or uses a child in the import, export, manufacture,        cultivation or supply of any illicit drug, 
   commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction – 

(i) 	in respect of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding 30 years or both; or 

(ii) 	in respect of a second offence, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding 50 years or both; or 

(iii) 	in respect of a third or subsequent offence, to be sentenced to life imprisonment. 

(2) For the purpose of this section, a child is a person who is under the age of 18 years.
61.	At the time that Mr. Pasi supplied 1 gram of methamphetamine to the 14 year old Sopane ‘Anitoni, there was in force legislation that specifically deals with offences of supplying illicit drugs to children.
62.	On the topic of the charge and submissions in respect of this offence I say no more.
How should the Court approach the sentence for supplying a child with an illicit drug ?
63.	There have been no previous cases sentenced in accordance with the regime in section 5 C.
64.	Firstly, I conclude I am bound to take into account the tariffs imposed under section 5 C of the Act for the following reasons
•	Section 5 C was in force at the time this offence was committed
•	This was an offence committed in the circumstances that section 5 C specifically mandates sentences for.
•	The supply in question was to a 14 year old, therefore a child for the purposes of section 5C. 
•	It was a significant quantity of an illicit class A drug
•	As has been stated repeatedly in these courts, the supplying of methamphetamine in the Kingdom of Tonga is a “scourge and has effected a great deal of harm and misery on society”  .
•	Illicit drug use and supply is one of the greatest threats to our children and our lives
65.	Turning next to how to implement a sentence in line with the tariff imposed under section 5C (1) (a) (i) of the Act. 
66.	I conclude the maximum sentence of 30 years for a defendant guilty of first offence under section 5C should be reserved for the gravest cases, for example larger scale supply charged as a single offence.
67.	I acknowledge that Parliament did not impute into the tariff that it  be influenced by quantity only that there be a supply of an illicit drug to a child. 
68.	I also conclude the younger the child supplied to, the more severe the penalty ought to be.
69.	A gram of methamphetamine is said to be worth in region of $400-600 TOP. In this case it was said to be worth $750.
70.	This Court frequently sees drug dealers supplying dealer bags of as little 0.05 grams methamphetamine or less.
71.	1 gram of methamphetamine is a significant amount and a sentence for possession of that amount attracts a sentence of approximately 1 years’ imprisonment.
72.	Parliament intended a far more punitive tariff be applied for offences involving the supply of illicit drugs when children are taregtted and supplied
73.	The guidance in Zhang v R is of only limited application since New Zealand does not have a sentencing tariff equivalent to Tonga’s section 5 C of the Act.
74.	The sentencing bands in Zhang v R are these 
band one: 	less than five grams - 	community service up to 4 years; 
band two: 	less than 250 grams - 	2 to 9 years; 
band three: 	less than 500 grams – 	6 to 12 years; 
band four: 	less than 2 kilograms - 	8 to 16 years; 
band five: 	more than 2 kilograms - 	10 years to life. 

75.	I note at paragraph 18 (h) of Zhang v R that court acknowledged, as it surely had to, that supply to school children was an aggravating factor. That is mirrored in the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council guidelines.
76.	But neither jurisdiction has the statutory regime Tonga has by virtue of the implementation of section 5C; specifically setting severe sentences when children have been targeted by criminals. 
77.	I conclude that a 30 year starting point must be reserved for the worst examples of this offending. That would include, but is not limited to, large scale supplies to younger or more vulnerable children.
78.	In this case Soane was 14, Mr. Pasi 20 years old at the time and so significantly older.
79.	Mr. Pasi manipulated Soane to become involved in a high value theft of significant cultural artefacts and used the allure of illicit drugs to do so.
80.	I acknowledge the methamphetamine was not just for Soane but jointly supplied to Siosaia Talahi a.k.a. Miki.
81.	When I consider these factors especially 
•	the disparity of ages between Mr. Pasi and Soane, 
•	as well as the significant quantity supplied and, 
•	the targeting of a school child to be supplied illicit drugs to encourage him to commit breaking in to a museum and stealing the artefacts for profit.
82.	I conclude a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment is appropriate ( 84 months).
83.	For his guilty plea and all the mitigating factors, a reduction of 30%, or 25 months. Which leaves 59 months. That is 4 years and 11 months’ imprisonment on count 4.
84.	I make count 4 the head count.
85.	In respect of count 3 a sentence of 60 months has already been set. That reduced to 40 months for the timely plea and previous good character.
Consecutive or concurrent sentences
86.	Consecutive sentences are generally only appropriate for unrelated offences; Kolo v Rex [2006] TOCA 5 at [11].
87.	In this case the harm caused in each offence was very different. The loss to the museum, the owners and the Kingdom of Tonga at large, On the other, the harm caused to a young person of vulnerable age by supplying him addictive drugs that lead time and again to young lives being ruined, sometimes beyond repair. It was a callous, corrupt and sordid thing to do.

88.	Some part of his sentence for count 3 must be added to count 4.

89.	I conclude that 17 months must be added to the sentence in count 4.

90.	That gives a sentence of 76 months in other words 6 years and 4 months.

Totality
91.	I have gone on to consider the question of totality in imposing concurrent terms.
92.	In R v Selupe [2021] TOSC 47 at [25] Lord Chief Justice Whitten KC said this :
“The totality principle  requires  the court  to have regard to the   totality  of  the
offending, particularly where the offences  are a series of related  offences. According to the principle, a court, which has correctly fixed a series of consecutive sentences as the appropriate  periods, is   obliged   at the end of    the
process to consider whether  the aggregate  figure  represents a proper period of
incarceration to be imposed for the total criminality  involved: McDonald v  The
Queen [1994]  FCA  956;  (1994)  48 FCR 555 at 563.    Further,  in  cases  where
the prisoner has not previously been sent to gaol, the  accumulation of sentences to be imposed ought not to result, unless there is no alternative, in a total which is a crushing first period of imprisonment.”

93.	These offences have undermined Tonga’s cultural heritage, caused huge financial loss as well as being aimed at corrupting young children and involving them in illicit drugs. All of which is so serious I see nothing excessive in a total sentence of 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
Suspension
94.	I have gone on to consider the principles in Mo’unga [1998] Tonga LR 154.
95.	Those principles are aimed at promoting rehabilitation. 
96.	The key points being whether the defendant was young, of previous good character, or passed long time without offending; whether the defendant would take the opportunity to rehabilitate.
97.	Because of his relatively young age and the fact of his guilty plea a, portion of his sentence deserves  to be suspended.
98.	The last 2 years will be suspended for 2 years on the following conditions; he must
I.	Report to probation within 48 hours of his release;
II.	Be placed on Probation;
III.	Complete life skills and drug rehabilitation course, and
IV.	Not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment.
99.	Any breach will be reserved to me and Mr. Pasi will be re-sentenced. 
100.	Mr. Pasi’s sentence is back dated to his first remanded into custody on 28 March 2024.
101.	Any monies seized is to be forfeited.
102.	Any drugs or paraphernalia that was seized to be forfeited and destroyed.

Conclusion
103.	Mr. Taulahi is sentenced to 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, the last 2 years suspended for 2 years on conditions.
104.	Mr. Pasi is sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, the last 2 years suspended for 2 years on conditions.
105.	Both their sentences be back-dated to the date of their first remand. 

SUPREME COURT	16 MAY 2024	
NUKU’A LOFA	COOPER J