	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Tonga

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Tonga

You are here: PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Tonga >> 2025 >> [2025] TOSC 82

R v Fetu'u [2025] TOSC 82; CR 6 of 2025 (12 November 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY
CR 6, 9, 14 to 15, 24 to 25 of 2025

BETWEEN:
R E X
- Prosecution

AND:
[1] TOHITONGI FETU'U
[3] TA'UFO'OU FALE'OFA
[5] 'ENEASI TANGI TAUMOEFOLAU
[6] TEVITA ‘ELONE TU’I’IEL’ILA SHOJI
[8] UINIKOVI KIVALU
[9] MAFI FATONGIATAU LUTUI
- Defendants

JUDGEMENT

BEFORE: LORD CHIEF JUSTICE MALCOLM BISHOP KC
Appearances: Mrs T Vainikolo and Mr G Aleamotu’a for the Crown Prosecution
Ms A Kafoa for Mr T Fetu’u
Ms H Aleamotu’a for Mr T Shoji
Mr A Fusimalohi for Mr U Kivalu
Mr S Tu’utafaiva as Mckenzie Friend for Mr T Fale’ofa, Mr E T
Taumoefolau, and Mr M Lutui
Trial: 9 September 2025 – 21 October 2025
Extemporaneous
Judgement: 22 October 2025
Written Judgement: 12 November 2025

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

These proceedings were committed to the Supreme Court for arraignment on 31 March 2025. Due to the number of Defendants and the volume of the evidence before the Prosecution, the indictment of these proceedings was not filed with the Court until 13 May 2025 with 27 Counts in total.
The indictment originally comprised of 14 Defendants. All 14 Defendants were then arraigned on 16 May 2025 where all the Defendants pleaded not guilty to the indictment and elected trial by judge-alone.
On 27 June 2025, the Court received an application in relation to Count 27 where 4 of the Defendants were jointly charged for Participation in a Criminal Organised Group contrary to section 66 of the Counter Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime Act.
From these Defendants, two namely Mr Tafokitau and Mr Lolomana’ia were only charged with Count 27. Mr Taumoefolau and Mr Shoji currently face additional charges on the indictment.
The Court heard this application and granted the severance of Count 27 and is no longer relevant to these proceedings.
From those 14 Defendants, 8 were unrepresented which raised concerns for this Court given the gravity and nature of these charges should they be found guilty. Assistance was sought from the Tonga Law Society and to his credit, Mr S Tu’utafaiva agreed to act as a McKenzie Friend for these unrepresented Defendants. He performed his duties admirably and in the interest of justice I made a direction that he could take a full part in the proceedings and could cross-examine, address me on points of law, and make closing remarks. I express my gratitude for his assistance.
On 2 September 2025, the Court dealt with preliminary matters of this trial related to disclosure and an application by the Prosecution for several witnesses to give their evidence via AVL, contrary to the current Practice Direction in place. This was opposed to by all Defendants and the matter was decided by Justice Garlick KC.
On 4 – 5 September, the Court heard a voir dire application on the nature of police conduct in relation to Mr Shoji and Mr Taumoefolau at first, then later only in relation to Mr Shoji. The Court ruled this application unsuccessful on 9 September 2025 and the trial proper in this matter then commenced.
At the end of the close of the Prosecution’s case on 7 October 2025, most of the Defendants submitted No Case to Answer. As such, the Court had ordered for the prosecution to set out their case to each Count and Defendant seriatim.
On 10 October 2025, the Court received the written submissions by the Prosecution and several submissions from the Defendants. The Court heard oral submissions from all parties on the same day.
The Court made its Ruling on the No Case to Answer on 13 October 2025, by which three of the Defendants were successful in their application with the remaining six found to have a case to answer.
Closing submissions from all Defendants were filed on 21 October 2025, with no further additions. The Prosecution filed their closing submissions on 22 October 2025, and the matter was called at 2pm to determine final oral submissions.
I now proceed to Judgement on the evidence before the Court.
1. THE CHARGES
On the 16 May 2025, the Defendants pleaded not guilty to the indictment. At the open of the Prosecution’s case on 9 September 2025, an application for amendments to the indictment was made and accepted by the Court.
At the close of the Prosecution’s case on 7 October 2025, another application was made to amend the particulars of the indictment to reflect the evidence that had been adduced by Inspector Pale. This was accepted by the Court.
On 10 October 2025, the Crown made a further application to amend the particulars for, Mr Mafi Lutui’s charges to reflect the entirety of the consignment concerned in these proceedings. This was accepted by the Court.
All amendments to the indictment in relation to the remaining Defendants are reflected in the charges as they now appear:
CR 15/2025 Tohitongi He Manatu Fetu’u
1. Count 1: Unlawful Import of an Illicit Drug ~~(3172.47g, 3583.69g,~~ 3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
2. In the alternative, Count 2: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug ~~(3172.47g, 3583.69g,~~ 3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
CR 9/2025 Ta’ufo’ou Fale’ofa
1. ~~Count 10: Unlawful Import of an illicit drug (897.71g of methamphetamine) contrary to section to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.~~ Discharged as having no case to answer on 13 October.
1. In the alternative, Count 11: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug (897.71g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
2. In the alternative to Count 11, Joint Count 12: Possession of an Illicit Drug (897.71g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
3. Joint Count 13: Unlawful Possession of a Utensil (weighing scale), contrary to section 5A of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
CR 14/2025 ‘Eneasi Tangi Taumoefolau
1. Count 18: Unlawful Import of an Illicit Drug (~~2274.76g,~~ 2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
2. In the alternative, Count 19: Engaging in Dealings with Another to import an Illicit Drug (~~2274.76g,~~ 2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
3. In the alternative to Count 19 is Count 20: Possession of an Illicit Drug (~~2274.76g,~~ 2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
CR 6/2025 Tevita ‘Elone Tu’i’ile’ila Shoji
1. Count 24: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug (~~2274.76g,~~ 2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
2. In the alternative, Count 25: Possession of an Illicit Drug Drug (~~2274.76g,~~ 2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
CR 24/2025 Uinikoni Kivalu
1. Count 21: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug ~~(3172.47g, 3583.69g,~~ 3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
CR 25/2025 Mafi Fatongiatau Lutui
1. Count 22: Unlawful Import of an Illicit Drug (~~2274.76g, 2236.08g,~~ 3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
2. In the alternative, Count 23: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug ~~(3172.47g,~~ ~~2274.76g, 2236.08g,~~ 3544.31g methamphetamine) contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
  1. APPLICABLE LAW
All these charges on the indictment are pursuant to the Illicit Drugs Control Act. The Act provides:

“3.Unlawful import or export of illicit drugs¹⁶

Any person who knowingly without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall lie on him, imports or exports any illicit drug commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction —

(a) in respect of a Class B drug in the quantity of less than 28 grams, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or both; ¹⁷

(b) in respect of a Class B drug in the quantity of 28 grams or more, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both; ¹⁸

(c) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of less than 1 gram, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both;¹⁹

(d) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of 1 gram or more, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding life or both; or ²⁰

(e) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of 28 grams or more, to life imprisonment.²¹

4. Unlawful possession, manufacture, cultivation, use and supply²²

(1) Any person who knowingly without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall lie on him²³—

(a) possesses, manufactures, cultivates, uses or supplies an illicit drug; or

(b) engages in any dealings with any other person for the import, export, possession, manufacture, use, cultivation, supply, transfer, transport, offer or sale of an illicit drug,

commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction —

(i) in respect of a Class B drug in the quantity of less than 28 grams, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or both;²⁴

(ii) in respect of a Class B drug in the quantity of 28 grams or more, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both; ²⁵

(iii) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of less than 1 gram, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both;²⁶

(iv) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of 1 gram or more, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding life or both; or²⁷

(v) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of 5 kilograms or more, to life imprisonment.²⁸

(2) For the purposes of this Act and any other enactment, if any person under section 3 or 4 of this Act is in possession²⁹—

(a) in respect of a Class B drug in the quantity of 7 grams or more; or

(b) in respect of a Class A drug in the quantity of 0.25 grams or more,

such person shall be deemed to be supplying such Class B or Class A drugs.

5A Unlawful import, export, possession, manufacture, use and supply of utensils³⁰

Any person who knowingly without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall lie on him, imports, exports, possesses, manufactures, uses or supplies utensils or any equipment or article that is capable of being used in the commission of an offence under this Act commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.”

CONSIDERATIONS

Following the ruling that there is no case to answer for three defendants, the matter proceeded to close the case of those who remained or were found to have a case to answer.
It is now the opportunity to gather the various strands together and come to a final decision as to the criminal liability or otherwise of each of the defendants.
I wish to emphasise that this is an individual Defendant focused investigation.
The fact that these remaining defendants have a case to answer does not mean that the Court has come to a final view of their criminal liability until all the evidence had been heard and closing submissions made on behalf of the defendant in question and the prosecution.
In other words, the Court approaches its task with a clean sheet.
The first matter to note is that the standard of proof is now different. The Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant whose case it is considering is guilty anything less than certainty of that nature must result in an acquittal.
I have already made a number of findings at the ‘no case stage’ and these would equally apply throughout the trial and so form a part of the consideration here.
They are as follows:

“7. Importation connotes a process rather than a single event. A person who, for example packs a consignment of drugs in the United States and places it in a vessel bound for Tonga is as guilty of importing that drug as the person who unloads it on the wharf here.
8. No legal difficulty arises as to the meaning of “import” the simple question is whether the
defendant concerned brought or arranged to be brought into the Kingdom the illicit drugs
concerned.
9. Engaging in dealings with any other person for the “import, export, possession, manufacture,
use, cultivation, supply, transfer, transport, offer or sale of an illicit drug”3 is also legally uncomplicated.
10. I hold engaging to mean participating or being concerned, taking a step with someone else
to enable illicit drugs to be brought into the Kingdom of Tonga. This could occur in various
ways, including for example the payment for the import of the drugs concerned, its transfer
within the Kingdom or distribution in Tonga.
11. Possession is legally a more difficult concept and considerable jurisprudence exists in relation to what it means. Possession is an offence of strict liability: provided the defendant knows that they have the thing in question in their possession, it does not matter what the thing is.⁴ This has caused considerable disquiet because a very serious offence in the ordinary way requires mens rea to establish criminal liability.⁵
12.In this regard, a helpful article has been published in the New Zealand legal information Institute P1 95–205 relating to the Narcotics Act (of NZ) and I proposed to follow its guidance in the following respects:

(1) The prosecution must prove that the defendant is knowingly in control of some article or substance that turns out to be prohibited under the narcotics act. The defendant need not be shown to know of the nature of the article i.e. that it is a narcotic or seed of a prohibited plant.
(2) Proof of possession is proof of possession of the drug i.e once the prosecution has proved the prohibited article or substance was in the Defendant’s possession, the defendant is presumed to have knowledge of the existence of the drug in their possession.
(3) It is then open to the defendant to point to evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the knowledge that has been imparted to him. If he can show that he honestly believed, on reasonable grounds, facts which, if they existed, would make his act lawful, he is entitled to an acquittal.”^[1]

I also repeat my approach to the evidence of Joseph Taufa, the informant. They were and remain as follows:

“14. ...his evidence is be approached, in short, as a participating party, it must be treated with considerable caution. But, in my view, a jury is entitled at this stage to accept that he was broadly speaking the truth.

15. It is to be noted that the informant became involved not because he was caught red handed and entered into a bargain with the Police to implicate the others in return for being granted immunity. He is in truth, a vulnerable witness, in that his future security depends on police protection. I have no doubt, that the Police would consider it their duty to afford such protection irrespective of his performance in the witness box, nevertheless there is at least an appearance of a risk in the mind of the public that if he does not come up to proof, that protection would be less forthcoming. He denied that and I accept his denial.
16. He says and the jury would be entitled to accept, his motive was that he was concerned about the proliferation of drugs in the Kingdom, in particular to young girls in Tonga.” ^[2]

I accept that.
I also bear in mind his acceptance that he did at times himself use drugs. I have taken all these factors into account in deciding whether or not and if so to what extent I should place reliance on the evidence of the informant as follows:

“18. There has been no suggestion that the informant received monetary compensation for his
troubles and indeed when arrested on 13 August 2024, he was kept in custody until December. A bail application was not supported by the prosecution until December.
19. For those reasons despite lapses of memory, difficulty of translation and at times concerning vagueness, I hold that a jury is entitled to conclude and I do conclude that his evidence when it matters is reliable.”^[3]

THE EXHIBITS

The following exhibits were adduced by the Prosecution throughout the duration of the trial in support of their case;
1. Court Book One
2. Court Book Two (3/3)
1. Exhibit 2 – Drone Footage of Sia’atoutai
1. Exhibit 2a – Transcript of the Drone Footage of Sia’atoutai
2. Exhibit 3 – Drone Footage of Tofoa
3. Exhibit 3a – Transcript of the Drone Footage of Tofoa
4. Exhibit 4 – Table of Reference by DFU Item to each Defendant
5. Exhibit 4a – Table of Reference by DFU Item to each Defendant
6. Exhibit 5: Table of Methamphetamine – Produced by Inspector Leniti Pale
7. Exhibit 6: Immunity Agreement of the informant.
During the course of the prosecution’s case, in cross examination, the Defense produced the following exhibits.
1. D1 – Video Recording of Voluntary Statement by Unikoni Kivalu
2. D2 – Bail Application by the Informant
  1. THE WITNESSES
The Prosecution called the following witnesses in support of their case against the Defendants:
1. Sergerant Tu’amelie Fifita – the informant’s handler and lead investigator in majority of the operations in these proceedings and prepared the chart of phone exhibits that was handed over to New Zealand Police via Mr Stewart to assist by extracting the data from these phones.
2. Inspector Malolo Vi – Officer in Charge of the Drugs Enforcement Unit, was present with the Drone Operator on 13 August 2024 and made communications at various times to the teams in the field through Zello & was informed of the operation and status of the informant by Sergerant Fifita.
1. Inspector Carsten Leveni – On 13 August 2024, was part of the surveillance inside SF Oceania Tongatapu then was the Officer in Charge of the work conducted at the residence in Tofoa.
1. Detective Uatahausi Tomu – On 13 August 2024, was with Sergerant Fifita in monitoring various Defendants, and was part of the team pursuing Taufo’ou Fale’ofa and Losaline Uasike, then took over the work being done once they were apprehended and the search for the packages that were thrown out of the car driven by Ta’ufo’ou.
2. Detective Emily ‘Otuhouma – On 13 August 2024, detained Charity Weatherall and took her to Central Police Station with others then later to the office at Vete Building.
3. Detective Noelina Latu – Present at the scene in Tofoa, during the search of Shoji’s vehicle and subsequently when the red bag being found, took custody of the red bag until they reached Central Police Station and handed it over to Inspector Pale.
4. Fonogatapu Vahe – Employee of SF Oceania here in Tonga, she confirmed the date the consignment was dropped off at the branch at SF Oceania, California.
5. Police Constable Miniola Pousima – Exhibit Keeper at Central Police Station and spoke as to when the seized exhibits are placed into the exhibit room, how it is stored and who has access to the room.
6. Inspector Pale – Officer in Charge of the Police Forensic Unit and conducted all the testing on the seized exhibits suspected to be methamphetamine relevant to these proceedings. I found his evidence credible and accept it
7. Joesph Mohulamu Taufa – the informant for Police since February 2024, who was a participating party together with the Defendants.
8. Kerwin Bruce Stewart (Expert in Digital Forensics) –Extracted the data from all phone exhibits in particular the location data for Tohitongi Fetu’u’s phone on the date that the consignment was dropped off at the SF Oceania branch at California and provided all these extractions back to Tonga Police through an encrypted external drive.
The Defence called the following witnesses in support of their respective cases to the charges:
1. Tohitongi Fetu’u (first Defendant) – He gave evidence as to his time in the United States, his travels between Hawaii and Oakland California, the reason he travelled to California and how it came about that he sent family supplies and tools through the 13 August 2024 consignment. He was told about the consignment from Kulisi Tonga who he was introduced to by Viliami Lavaka who lived with him at his cousin’s residence in California, and spoke as to the location data where he says he had swapped phones with Viliami Lavaka and it was Viliami Lavaka who was present at SF Oceania during the relevant time, not him.
2. Tevita Elone Tu’i’ile’ila Shoji (sixth Defendant) – How he became acquainted with the fifth Defendant, the work he was doing for him having left his prior job with Luna’eva. He is skilled in construction, specifically in plumbing and electrical work. He told the Court what he was doing on 13 August 2024, his interaction with the informant at Tofoa and the events leading up to his arrest and the extent of his knowledge as to the red bag that was found in his vehicle.
  1. THE EVIDENCE
I consider the substantive evidence from this trial being that of Sargeant Fifita as to the background and history of the offending, Inspector Pale as to the testing and weight of the methamphetamine of these proceedings, and the informant as to his personal involvement with the Defendants and the information he provided to Police.

Sergeant Tu’amelie Fifita

Setting the Scene

During the Christmas break 2023 Sergeant Fifita (“Fifita”) reflected on the drastic increase of illicit drugs in the Kingdom. The drugs unit were beginning to focus on people in Tonga who had connections to the USA.
In April 2023, a different police unit conducted an operation, called operation “Brake.” As a result, the ninth Defendant, Mafi Fatoniatau Lutui (“Mafi”) was identified as having connections to the USA. The officer conducted covert surveillance and discovered that he was associated with properties at One Way Road and three further locations, including the Tanoa hotel parking lot and various areas in Nuku’alofa.
In February 2024 there was a significant development when the officer got in touch with Joseph Taufa (“the informant”) who he was acquainted with through attending the same church. The officer asked Taufa whether he could help about any information in relation to Eco Reef and Teau Faletau (“Teau”), but he was unable to do so at that time.
Eco Reef is a live fish exporting company and police intelligence suggest that the owner, Teau was one of the main points of contact for the import of illicit drugs. It was arranged that the informant would provide information to the police and for this purpose he would need to integrate himself with those involved.
Thus, from February 2024, Taufa became a police informant and at times a participating informant. This means that his evidence when it is given must be treated with considerable caution. It also means that since much of Fifita’s evidence was relaying on what the informant had told him, such information at this stage coming from the informant is not admissible until he gives evidence and is cross examined.
At this stage, it simply explains the state of the Fifita’s mind and the actions he took but I repeat it does not amount to evidence against any of the defendant at this stage.
In March 2024, Mafi lost his car keys and as a result used the informant’s vehicle, this served to foster a trusting relationship between them.
Before that on or about 27-28 February 2024, a 22-year-old male was arrested for drunk driving following an accident and the following day Mafi gave the informant 2 pounds of methamphetamine and asked him to hold onto it because the person who had initially had it had been arrested. This supposedly was the beginning of the informant becoming more involved with illicit drugs.
On 1 March 2024, Fifita met the informant and saw the 2 pounds of methamphetamine. This was not properly weighed but only a visual estimation.
Next, Fifita provides that in April 2024, 5kg methamphetamine is given to the informant at the One-Way Residence by Koli Moa. On 4 April 2024, Mafi tells the informant that tomorrow is a big day as that is when they will go to the Tanoa hotel for Teau who is arranging the destination of the drugs to give them further directions.
On the 5 April 2024, Fifita briefed his team that included a drone team and members of the tactical response group (“TRG”) and on this day one Ofisi Ake from Fasi was arrested.
He works at the airport, and he was expected to place drugs on a plane to New Zealand and then communicate the number of the bin in question where the drugs will be placed into, to Teau.
On the 8 April 2024, Teau himself was arrested at the Tanoa hotel in relation to this estimated 5kg of methamphetamine.
The informant, during the period of April to May 2024 gave information to Fifita, namely concerning, one Malia Selei Fuimaono (“Selei”). It was believed this name would be a recipient of the consignment containing illicit drugs.
On 4 June 2024 the informant was introduced to the 5^th Defendant ‘Eneasi Tangi Taumoefolau (“Taumoefolau”) who gave the informant $49k TOP and was told to hold onto it until he was told by Taumoefolau on what to do with it. Fifita then met with the informant and Fifita counted and confirmed this amount of cash.
The informant further provided Fifita, with a bank account number that was provided to the informant by both Taumoefolau and Mafi separately. The only information Fifita found out about this bank account is that it belongs to Wells Fargo Bank.
According to Fifita, the informant was to provide this bank account number and the money to one, De Feng Mo (“Mo”). On 6 June 2024, the informant told Fifita that he had passed the money directly to Mo.
On 8 June 2024, Fifita was told of an arrangement whereby $6K would be sent to 3 recipients in the United States and the name Rodney Hala was introduced. This information came from the Mafi Lutui where the informant showed Fifita a screenshot from Mafi’s phone of 3 names all in association with Rodney Hala. From this Fifita concluded that the informant is now connected to Mafi, Taumoefolau and Rodney Hala.
The actual transfer was affected by one Latai Tufunga a friend of both the informant and Mafi Lutui who sent the money to two of the names provided on 8 June 2024.
On 26 June 2024, Fifita stopped the third Defendant, Ta’ufo’ou Faleofa (“Ta’ufo’ou”) and Losaline Uasike (“Losaline”) as they were in breach of their currently imposed curfew. On interrogating Taufo’ou’s phone significant information was discovered including a contact from the third defendant to Rodney Hala, the first Defendant Tohitongi Fetu’u (“Tohitongi”), the informant and Mafi.
Fifita particularly noted a conversation on the phone between Ta’ufo’ou and Tohitongi who was known to Fifita through his siblings that are in the Police force and current police intelligence suggested that this Defendant was one of the main importers of illicit drugs, by receiving consignments with illicit drugs in them, under various names.
In this conversation, the name “Toni Sililo Tufui” and a phone number is mentioned. Fifita ran a search of this phone number on google, and found that it was linked to a company belonging to Rodney Hala. Fifita confirmed, this is the same Rodney Hala that appears on Ta’ufo’ou ‘s phone.
This phone was seized as an exhibit, and the two defendants were taken into custody. From the information they received from the phone, police located and noted the residence of Toni Sililo Tufui (“Toni”).
On 15 July 2024, Fifita gathered his team, and they went to the customs warehouse once they had confirmed that there was a consignment addressed to Selei. Fifita alongside his team had gone to customs warehouse around 8pm when the area was deserted and examined this consignment. It was opened and, in the middle, he found a yellow rubbish box and inside the box were three rectangular bars wrapped in clear wrap and coated in engine oil to deter detection by dogs.
The police unwrapped these bars which revealed methamphetamine, the substance together with all the packaging weighed together of an estimated 2kg. The packages/bars were re-packaged and returned to the box, and it was expected that the informant would be picking up this confinement concerned.
On the 16 July 2024, a controlled delivery of the illicit drugs in a consignment addressed to Selei was approved to allow Police to be able to follow and see where the illicit drugs will end up. Fifita briefed officers from the drugs unit plus the drone team on the operation they were about to conduct.
The drone spotted Ta’ufo’ou who had parked his Mazda Demio at the wharf facing Tanoa Hotel. He approached a lorry, spoke to the driver and took a photograph of the license plate of that lorry then departed. The drone followed him up until where it was confirmed that he left towards the Eastern Side, before the drone returned to the Nuku’alofa area. This of course is evidence from a drone according to Fifita
This same lorry that Ta’ufo’ou had approached was the same lorry that then proceeded to the wharf into the customs area and the consignment was loaded onto. Selei was present at the wharf but once it was loaded and it departed from the wharf around 4pm, the consignment followed the informant to the residence at the One-Way Road.
The consignment was dropped off at the residence at the one way Road and the informant opened it, took out three bars put it into a school bag (khaki coloured), then got into his blue vehicle and drove to the bus station to the Eastern Side at Taufa’ahau Road then got off from there and walked to the bus station to the Viola Hospital.
He waited at the Vaiola bus station 10 to 15 minutes, meanwhile Police had surrounded the area on standby when a white SUV arrived driven by Taumoefolau who picked up the informant. They both went to the Taumoefolau’s residence in Tofoa, about half an hour later they changed vehicles and got into a black vehicle where Taumoefolau dropped off to the informant at the Taufa’ahau Road and from there he walked back to his vehicle.

Operation Burrito 1

On August 9 2024, Fifita was contacted by the informant around 5 pm that he had received information that the consignment addressed to Toni had been released from SF Oceana Limited. This is information which the informant obtained from Rodney Hala.
Fifita told the informant nothing could be done as it was a Friday and SF Oceania was closed but they would deal with the matter on Monday, 12^th of August 2024. On that date the informant got in touch with Fifita and told him that the paperwork for the consignment still needs to be completed and the consignment most likely would not be released until Tuesday, 13 August 2024.
On the morning of 13 August 2024, a briefing was done by Fifita to members of the Drugs Unit before they dispersed and were posted at strategic locations. This briefing was held at around 7am in the morning at the Central Police Station at Nuku’alofa before the dayshift had arrived. This was done to preserve the security of the members of the unit being dispersed to various locations.
After this briefing, Fifita went to headquarters to perform a briefing with the TRG and informed them on to be on standby to see where the consignment would be moved as the destination of the consignment was not clear at that time. Detective Tomu together with Fifita then left in one vehicle and went to Hala’o’vave to watch Mafi.

Residence of Toni Sililo Tufui.^[4]

The consignment left SF Oceania and made its way to Toni’s at Sia’atoutai. The consignment arrived at Sia’atoutai in a red lorry that was being driven by Toni. This red lorry belongs to a relative of Elisa Fetu’u (former second Defendant) who arrives shortly after behind the red lorry in a car with her relative.
This relative then assists Toni in opening the consignment and unloading a few items onto the side of the residence, in particular to these proceedings, 2 sacks of rice. Shortly after some items were offloaded together with the sacks of rice, the red lorry departed together with Elisa Fetu’u in the car that she initially arrived in.
As it appears on the footage, Toni then begins to put into the residence these items that were unloaded through the side window of the residence, then he picks up the two sacks of rice and walks around the house with them and goes into the residence.
Sometime later, a black voxy arrives at Toni’s residence. The informant was in this vehicle. Toni then comes out of the residence with a red bag, is about to place the red bag into the black voxy, then instead passes it to the informant, who then places it in the front passenger seat of the black voxy.
The informant eventually departs from the residence with the red bag. After he departed, Fifita was contacted by the informant and confirmed to him that his destination has been confirmed, being Eneasi Taumoefolau’s residence in Tofoa.

Residence of Eneasi Taumoefolau.^[5]

The informant arrives in a black voxy at the residence in Tofoa, turning into the driveway. He gets out with a red bag and walks into the residence. The fifth defendant followed him inside and Tevita ‘Elone Tu’ile’ila Shoji (“Shoji”) the sixth defendant remained outside.
Shoji was pinning up posters which appear to be on behalf of a rental company. He walks down the road for a bit before returning to the front yard of the residence.
Shortly thereafter, the informant comes out of the residence and gets into the black voxy van, at the same time the fifth defendant comes out of the residence and walks towards Shoji’s black car opens the driver seat and places something in the front passenger seat. The informant subsequently reverses and leaves the residence.
Shoji eventually gets into his vehicle and picks up the red bag from the front passenger seat and places it in the back seat of the vehicle as this was happening, he was still talking with the fifth defendant.
Shoji leaves the residence and moments after he leaves the residence he is stopped by an TRG unmarked car. He attempted to reverse, but the vehicle is prevented from escaping when officers shot twice and strike the bonnet of the car causing the radiator to leak and the car itself to be disabled.
He was arrested moments later, the drone captures the fifth defendant at the back of his house making his way to a white vehicle that was parked in the driveway.
He exited and turned right in the opposite direction however shortly after he is stopped by a police car which has TRG members inside. They knocked on his door, he got out of the vehicle and was arrested.
As this was happening, other officers from the team that had arrested Shoji made their way to the residence to clear the residence and ensure there was no threat to police.
Before Fifita arrived at the residence having first been at the scene where Shoji was arrested, he was contacted by the informant who told him that there are 2 packages of drugs from the same consignment that is intended for Ta’ufo’out who insisted on obtaining it that day.
Fifita told the informant he should do what was necessary and Police would do their best to chase after these packages once they are able to as they were still at Tofoa.

Operation Burrito 2

Whilst at Tofoa, Fifita is informed by the informant that about 30 minutes later he had passed part of the consignment to Ta’ufo’ou as his share.
They had met at the spiral/3-way road at Ha’ateiho before the small hill to Tonga College and he had passed over a parcel to Ta’ufo’ou, who then made his way to Kolanga.
Fifita knew this because he had been informed by the informant and he told TRG Officer Ha’amala to get into the vehicle with him to chase and catch up with Ta’ufo’ou who was heading towards the eastern side to Kolanga.
At the same time Fifita made communications for a marked police vehicle and a TRG unit so that they could use their emergency lights because of the traffic conditions at the time.
Police eventually caught up to a vehicle identified as Ta’ufo’ou’s vehicle, they were able to do this because Officer Ha’amala is Ta’ufo’ou’s neighbour and Fifita himself is familiar with the make, model and colour of Ta’ufo’ou’s vehicle as he had come to the Police Station before.
Fifita initially overtook and stopped Ta’ufo’ou’s vehicle, as he got off to approach the vehicle with another TRG unmarked vehicle blocking the back, Ta’ufo’ou accelerated and a car chase ensued. During the pursuit Fifita, observed that something had been thrown out of the window during the chase. This was from the front passenger seat, eventually when the area was searched, two packages containing drugs was found in the surrounding area during the chase.
It is the prosecution’s case that the passenger of the vehicle namely Losaline (former fourth Defendant) and Ta’ufo’ou’s partner, threw out the two packages because she knew they contained illicit drugs.
The package containing drugs were eventually found by a team of young police recruits who had been tasked with sweeping the area later that day.
Taking it shortly, the chase ended with the arrest of the driver and his partner. There were two children in the backseat, and it was necessary to examine the telephone belonging to the third defendant and the red phone belonging to his partner.
The significance of these messages will be addressed later.

One-Way Residence

The informant was arrested at around 8pm at the One-Way residence road, this was done to allay suspicion about his true position. It seems that he was treated in every way similar to the other suspected persons who was kept in custody and indeed was not granted bail for some months.

Residence of Toni Sililo Tufui at Sia’atoutai

A search of this residence started round 9pm and various photographs were taken.^[6] Among the significant items found was, a shoe rack. The police dog indicated something suspicious inside, in fact the left boot pair which the dog sniffed had three packs of meth inside the shoe and the socks are placed to cover the shoe. There was also sack of rice inside Toni’s room
A further pair of shoes were examined where meth was also found inside concealed under a pair of socks. The search continued and photos of pairs of shoes and socks were taken. Methamphetamine was found concealed with socks over the shoes, in short there were packs of ice concealed throughout the room, in the shoe rack and under socks.
This work was completed it around midnight and four occupants were arrested, namely Toni, his wife, Sione Pailate and Oscar Finau.

CPS Nuku’alofa – Midnight

Fifita was at the Central Police Station waiting for the results of various searches at the headquarters. At this time, the teams from the residence at Tofoa and the team at Kolonga converged that the office building at Tali’eva Building, belonging to the fifth Defendant.
At this stage, Fifita is informed of the results from the Tofoa Residence, namely that the Taumoefolau, Shoji and Mafi had been arrested and Police had seized 3 packages suspected to be methamphetamine and other items.
From the operation in Kolonga, 2 packages suspected to be methamphetamine were found, together with a weighing scale and both their phones were confiscated by Police.
The search conducted at the office in the Tali’eva Building was all clear and nothing was found according to what Fifita was told.

14 August 2024 – National Storage Unit 1am

The event now moved to the national storage unit where at 1am Fifita briefed the team on the continuation of the operation and directed them to the national storage unit.
Fifita has seen the fifth Defendant enter these premises and come out on the 13 August 2024.
It was confirmed that there was storage facility belonging to Taumoefolau however nothing was found at this facility. It seems that the wrong storage facility was searched.

14 August 2024 – Tevita Shoji’s Residence at Kolomotu’a (3am to 4am)

Fifita then briefed the team stating that there were three different locations where work needed to be done, all at the same time, namely the residence of Charity Weatherall at Fasi, Mafi Lutui’s at Hala’ovave and Shoji’s at Kolomotua.
Fifita was part of the team that went to Shoji’s residence and Shoji himself was brought from custody to his house whilst the search was being conducted and he was informed as to the purpose of the search. He was informed of his rights and his wife, father and children who reside in the residence were also present.
The house was searched and “Commenchero” vests, cash, a phone, together with his wife’s phone was found inside the room.^[7] I have entirely ignored the reference to this alleged organisation as a criminal organisation as it is not in the charges before me and its prejudicial effect entirely outweighs any probative value.
The cash found amounted to several thousand pa’anga and this was found inside the drawer of the first cupboard in Shoji’s bedroom.^[8]
Shoji is a carpenter by trade and asked about the money he remained silent. Later in cross-examination it was clarified that he initially stated the cash was a result of land that he sold, then when asked further about it he remained silent.
The items set out in the search list, exhibit 1 to 5 were confirmed by Fifita as everything that was found in Shoji’s residence.^[9]
Shoji’s wife’s telephone was also found and Fifita told her it needed to be unlocked but not before informing her of her rights. She agreed to unlock it and from there it was of significance to Fifita a conversation between the wife and one Veronica Paeaelata.^[10]

14 August 2024 – Further Operations

On this day, Fifita gave evidence about three further operations that were conducted however, do not go directly to any of the Defendants of the charges the Court now has to deal with.
For completeness, this is the work done at the airport where “Commenchero” vests were found, the arrest of ‘Elisa Valauela Fetu’u who is no longer a Defendant and the arrest of one Fatongia Hanisi, who was never a Defendant in these proceedings and is not relevant.

15 August 2024 – Remand of Defendants

All Defendants that had been arrested so far were taken to the Magistrate Court at 1400hrs and they were then ordered to be kept in remand until 2 September 2024.

17 August 2024 – Arrest of Tohitongi Fetu’u at Hofoa

Police were informed from the Airport that this Defendant has returned, Fifita and others then went to Hofoa to his residence to arrest him.
The Defendant was located at the Hall in the village and was arrested there before they returned to his residence. They returned to the residence because Fifita states his phone was needed.
The phone was retrieved from the residence, the Defendant also consented for Police to access it after Fifita read to him his rights and reminding him that he does not have to provide should he not wish to do so.

Voluntary Statements and Record of Interviews

On 28 August 2024, Shoji made a voluntary statement together with a sketch map.^[11] The Defendant was informed that he was about to be questioned in relation to illicit drugs and he was read his rights.
The Defendant then wanted to contact his lawyer, which was done and appears on the record signed by the Defendant, Fifita and Police Officer Tafea.^[12]
On 29 August 2024 at 12:45pm , Detective Mafi conducted the Record of Interview for Tohitongi Fetu’u whereby Fifita was also present.^[13]
For question 20, where this Defendant called his brother and he showed Police at his residence, the phone was passed to a Police Officer, this was Fifita. Fifita spoke to this Defendant over the phone and told him not to worry about his wife, Police will do their work and when he returns they’ll speak more then Fifita turned off the phone.
On the same day, 29 August 2024 at 9:50pm, Fifita conducted the Record of Interview for Taufo’ou.^[14] Police Officer ‘Otuhouma and Tafea were also present.
The Written Statement of Charges and a confessions form was also signed by the Defendant at this time.
Taking it shortly, between 13 August to 29 August 2025, Fifita gave evidence as to the numerous operation police conducted in following the consignment addressed to Toni, in relation to associated parties and acting on the information Police had been gathering from the informant.
Significantly, Fifita was also the one who took charge of organising the phone exhibits, he created a table/chart sorting out all the seized phones by Defendant, passcode, model, and phone number if applicable.^[15] From this, Fifita passed it to Mr Stewart of New Zealand Police who assisted in this investigation resulting in the phone extractions using Cellbrite that is relied on by the Crown as evidence.
Fifita was cross-examined at considerable length. It is not fruitful to deal with the minutiae of that exercise except to say that in essence it was unsuccessful. Fifita denied the individual allegations made and held fast to his testimony in chief however one matter merits further consideration.
It is suggested that part of a consignment namely 2 pounds of methamphetamine was in some way appropriated by the informant, it was put to him in this way in cross-examination; “I put to you that the informant knowingly took a share of the drugs knowing he was breaking the law for him to gain a reward.”
That was denied and later further put; “I put to you that the drugs were given to Joseph Taufa to distribute as his share as a reward for the work he did”
Fifita was asked further, “After you did work based on the information from Joeseph Taufa the work could not go further to retrieve the 2kg to prevent the public from accessing it?”
Fifita answered to the effect of, “it was a risk we took, but we tried to retrieve it through other operations, but at the time we needed information to arrest majority of them.”
What is being suggested is that in some way, the Police at the very least turned a blind eye to the informant retaining part of the proceeds of the drug consignment and that he did so as a reward for his work in informing on the others.
I entirely accept that denial, let the facts be faced, this was an informant who was a valuable source of information leading to the inception of considerable amounts of methamphetamine coming into Tonga.
It was vital that his identity be safeguarded and one of the ways in which that can be done would be to give the others the impression that he was sharing in the spoils. I do not think it insignificant that this man was arrested and kept in custody for several weeks which is hardly the way to treat a favoured informant but is again, an indication of the steps which the police took to secure his identity.
I entirely reject the suggestion that this the informant was in anyway complicit in the allegations made and I reject them out of hand.

Inspector Leniti Pale
1. He is Officer in Charge of the forensic unit and has 20 years’ experience. His task was to interrogate the Trunarc machine, a dedicated piece of equipment which is able to analyse specimens and test all the exhibits that were seized.
2. It has a library of over 400 possible illicit drugs and its mechanism except that it is able to identify specimen examines. I am quite satisfied that Inspector Pale has sufficient training and experience to be able to undertake this task with integrity.
3. He explained that the accuracy of the machine is tested regularly throughout the process and I am entirely satisfied it gives a reading which is both accurate and fair.
4. The final result of what was found is summarised below:^[16]
  1. Toni Sililo Tufui’s Residence: 217.55g methamphetamine
  2. Joeseph Taufa: 192.97g methamphetamine
  1. Tevita Shoji’s Vehicle at Tofoa: 2236.08g methamphetamine
  1. Hoi Road in relation Taufo’ou Fale’ofa & Losaline Uasike: 897.71g methamphetamine
  2. Total Net Weight for Operation Burrito: 3,544.31g methamphetamine
5. There are slight discrepancies on all these readings from the record on the Police Diary and the record on the Certificate of Analysis but none of them are any material significance in my view.
6. I therefore hold that the evidence establishes to the criminal standard that the searches and weights I have just set out revealed the considerable amount of methamphetamine such that those connected with to it must have strong connections with the illicit drugs in question.
7. That seems to me to be beyond argument and although counsel very properly tested the minutiae of the findings no successful challenge was mounted to the Inspector's findings which in my view stand.
Joesph Mohulamu Taufa
1. It is now necessary to consider the evidence of the informant. His evidence must be treated with considerable care and caution as stated.
2. He is an informant and to some extent a participating informant, he tells me that he agreed to assist the police because of his concern that drugs were being distributed among young people and especially girls here in Tonga.
3. Whatever his motives I repeat I must regard his evidence with considerable caution not only because of his own participation in the criminal conduct itself but also because of his unique circumstances in which I adhere and the observations made in the “no case stage.”
4. With that in mind I paid particular care to his evidence. I listened to and watched the informant give evidence where he appeared by AVL. The advantage of such a method is that he appears close-up on the screen and I was able to and I did, observe his features much more closely than I would normally do so from the witness box having borne constantly in mind all that I have cautioned myself about his potential unreliability.
5. I am completely satisfied that his evidence was truthful and accurate. He did not dissemble, he did not try to paint himself in a flattering light, he gave evidence dispassionately and calmly and I remain satisfied that what he said was with the ring of truth.
6. I say this bearing in mind that a liar is sometimes able to disguise his mendacity with a veneer of probability so to that extent demeanour is a less than perfect guide, nevertheless it is invaluable in ascertaining the truth of oral testimony and in my view this evidence convinced me of it for his veracity and indeed I found it compelling.

Background

He said that he used to work for Eco Reef owned by Teau and in working there he got to know Mafi who was involved in dealing in illicit drugs but at that stage the witness did not himself become involved.
Towards the end of February to March of 2024, he became involved and Mafi began to show this witness sides of the business in relation to illicit drugs. The witness became aware at this stage the illicit drugs Mafi was working with was Teau’s.
Prior to this, around Christmas 2023, he was approached by a lawyer working for the police asking for assistance. This person knew that he was working with Mafi Lutui and asked if he could help. At this time, he was still working with Mafi Lutui at Eco Reef.
The informant told this lawyer to give him time and that side is very secure, if he finds anything out, he will make communications.
Coming back to the end of February to March 2024, the informant was persuaded by Mafi to store 4 pounds of methamphetamine.
Throughout the duration of the evidence, it is noted that the motive as to why, the informant chose to contact the lawyer and to become an informant for Police varies, at one point it was provided because Teau made an inappropriate comment about an immediate family member of his then at a later instance, it was because he had seen how illicit drugs had negatively impacted the youth, but especially young girls being taken advantage of by the people that are selling illicit drugs.
He got in touch with the lawyer about this and was advised that someone called Fifita will get in touch with him. This was Sergeant Fifita who has already played a prominent part in these proceedings on the work police conducted with the informant.
It is then later clarified that the informant has been long acquainted with Fifita as they attended school and church together.
The informant stored the consignment of 4 pounds and took them to various locations in Tonga to keep it secure. Of these 4 pounds, police were able to seize back parts of the illicit drugs that the informant knew of, and where it went, but parts where only Mafi Lutui knew about it, police were unable to track or seize.
One of the tasks the informant was asked to do was to deliver $90,000TOP to Mr Mo for onward transmission. This amount was picked up from 2 separate people, in Vaotu’u and Ngele’ia. The informant confirmed the Teau was the one giving directions in relation to this money and that he did not know what it was for.
The informant then stated that Teau had called Mafi on a day he cannot recall for them to go to Telekava Cemetery. The informant and Mafi met Koli Moa at this cemetery where a pound of methamphetamine was passed from Koli Moa and then delivered to Vaotu’u by Mafi and the informant.
But, there were problems in relation to the drugs and Teau wanted the drugs to be returned so that they could look into the problem as it was being stocked from Teau’s side. When asked further to elaborate about what this problem was with the illicit drugs, the informant could not provide any further information.

April 2024

On another occasion in April, he was provided with 12 ½ pounds of drugs that was brought over by Koli Moa the person they met at the cemetery, to his residence at One Way Road. The informant then stored them at his home then got in touch with Fifita and informed him that a large amount of drugs had been given to him and was advised by the Fifita to do his best to keep the drugs together so that its destination could be ascertained.
At the time, it was unclear what the plan was for the drugs but Mafi said it would be confirmed the next day and it became clear to me that the drugs would not be dispersed or separated but kept together.
The following day the drugs were loaded into the vehicle and they went to Tanoa. He remained in the vehicle whilst Mafi went and spoke to Teau to confirm where the drugs would be taken.
Mafi then told him to go back home with the drugs whilst they confirm the name and location of who the drugs would be moved to. This was in the afternoon hours, he returned home and remained there with the drugs.
Mafi returned in the afternoon hours with another person and said it was ready so the informant put the drugs back into the car and they went to a residence in Fasi where the bag was placed there together with $1000TOP and then they went home and all dispersed.
Later, he called Fifita told him what had happened. The informant then provided that the drugs were all seized by Police and no one was arrested on the day, but later Teau was arrested in relation to those drugs.

July 2024 Consignment

In Febraury or March, at the instigation of Mafi, he asked the informant for a name to be provided for a consignment to be addressed to. He provided the name of an acquaintance, “Selei Fuimano.” This consignment would be sent from the United States to Tonga
The informant then told the Court about a consignment in July 2024 which involved a man from the United States called Rodney Hala. The informant was introduced by Mafi to this person after Teau was arrested, as a result it seems the fifth Defendant, Taumoefolau also became involved through Mafi.
The consignment in July was sent in the name of Selei, the informant states this consignment was intended for Teau. From Taumoefolau’s side, money was being passed to complete the remaining amount that Teau had not been able to pay for the consignment.
There were periods of time where both the informant and Mafi would pick up money to be sent to an account provided by Rodney Hala from the United States.
For this consignment, the informant was told by Mafi to look after the cash flow and the consignment. This is because Mafi had begun to show the informant how the money was being handled, where and how it would be sent overseas.
The informant confirms, based on this, that is what happened, he took care of the cash flow and the consignment. At this time, the person from the United States began to trust the informant more, together with Mafi where they would provide him with the information about the consignment.
The informant understood this consignment would contain 5kgs of methamphetamine but the informant was able to reduce the weight of the drugs to 3 pounds. According to him, had the 5kgs been imported, it would be too big of an amount for it to be let go to identify the relevant parties involved.
He further confirmed that Fifita was made aware of the consignment as soon as the name of the recipient was provided to Mafi.
When asked further as to who the consignment was intended for, the informant stated that it was for Taumoefolau and 1 pound was for Ta’ufo’ou, the third Defendant who has asked for work.
Once the consignment arrived, it was loaded and transported to the informant’s residence at the One-Way Residence. At the time he was waiting to see if it would be seized, however Fifita communicated to him that they would let it go, considering his safety and the potential implication that would fall on him if they were to seize the illicit drugs in exposing his position as an informant.
He opened the box once it arrived at his residence, took out the illicit drugs and then gave it to Taumoefolau at his residence.
The total weight of the methamphetamine given to Taumoefolau was 3 pounds, at the residence. Whilst he was there he saw Ms Weatherall and Shoji weigh these 3 pounds before he was given a pound that was to be given to Taufo’ou for him to sell.
When asked if he knew what happened to the 2 pounds that was left with Taumoefolau, the informant stated he had no knowledge as to what happened afterwards. It was at this stage that the informant says he began to consider the notion of giving evidence, whilst they were waiting for the next consignment in August.

The August Consignment.

This was a consignment that would contain 4kg of illicit drugs. The informant knew this because he was told by Mafi and Rodney Hala. The type of illicit drugs that he understood it to be was methamphetamine and he was also aware of those that were involved, namely Tohitongi, Taufo’ou and Toni.
Tohitongi is said to be based on what he understood between the communications with Taufo’ou, the one who would pack the illicit drugs into the consignment from America.
Mafi had asked the informant for a name and the preference would be that the name is of someone that has no relation to illicit drugs. The informant provided Toni’s name as the recipient for the consignment because he did not want anyone not related to illicit drugs to get implicated.
Toni has his own work in selling illicit drugs and the informant had asked Toni sometime between April to August 2024. Apart from this, Toni had no further involvement in terms of the consignment arrangements for it to be sent.
At this stage, the informant also could not be sure of Taufo’ou’s involvement just that he was communicating directly with Rodney Hala.
The informant’s job to his understanding was to pick up the consignment and take the drugs out by removing the methamphetamine from the sacks of rice and take the box to Tohi’s residence in Tonga. There were 6 packages altogether in this consignment, 3 packages were for Taumoefolau, 2 for Taufo’ou and 1 for the informant.
Altogether the events of that occurred were as follows. He contacted Toni on 12 August to try to get to the wharf to work on getting the consignment released. The consignment was then released on 13 August, on this day, it was just picking up the consignment.
The informant then came to follow up on the money that Rodney Hala wanted. On 15 May 2024, he was given $25K by Taumoefolau to give to Mr Mo for onward transmission to Rodney Hala. This money was passed to Mr Mo on the same day, yet Rodney Hala had still not received it. He could not confirm whether this was on 12 or 13 August, but he did confirm that Taumoefolau told him not to worry about the money, he would take care of it and for the informant to focus on the consignment.
According to the informant, he understood this $25K as being, a part payment for the consignment in July and a part for the consignment in August.
Eventually the consignment was released on the 13 August, the informant went with Toni to the wharf and they needed a tin number before they could release the consignment. At this time, both Tohi and Taufo’ou were checking to see if everything was going well.
The consignment was at SF Oceania and released from there, the consignment was loaded onto a red lorry that was provided by a relative of Tohitongi who was there with Tohitongi’s wife. When the consignment was loaded, he was elsewhere and was surprised when Toni informed him they were already on their way with the consignment to Sia’atoutai. When he arrived at Sia’atoutai, the consignment was no longer there and Toni informed him that he had already taken the ice out of the rice sacks and placed them into a red bag with two straps. Inside the red bag were 6 packages in total.
The informant then contacted Taumoefolau whilst he was still at Sia’atoutai that the consignment is ready and that he has his share.
After he departed from Sia’atoutai, he contacted Fifita and informed him he was about to distribute everyone’s shares. Fifita requested that the informant stall to give police time to position themselves in various areas so he rang Taumoefolau and told him that he would first go home before delivering the packages to him.
Once Police were ready, he drove to Tofoa but called Taumoefolau to ensure that the area was safe. He asked the informant for more time and later messaged that it was all was clear, so he went straight there and turned into the driveway in a black voxy vehicle.
He took the red bag, took three packages and left it in the vehicle and left three in the red bag and went off with it.
The three remaining packages that was left in the vehicle was placed in a black plastic bag on the side of the seat.
He then took the red bag, got off and went to the veranda of the residence and gave the bag to Taumoefolau where they shortly spoke about what happened at the wharf, then Taumoefolau came and placed the bag in the black/dark blue car which was parked in the driveway, in the front passenger seat. He then left to go meet Taufo’ou to give him his share because he wanted it immediately.
He drove towards Ha’ateiho to the spiral with the road leading to Tokomololo. He had already explained to Fifita what was happening he asked the informant to confirm where he would meet Taufo’ou and they will finish the work at Tofoa and catch up later.
They missed each other at the spiral to Ha’ateiho and Tokomololo and Taufo’ou asked the informant to meet him at the Chinese shop at the four-way road near the Mormon church.
Taufo’ou met him there, the informant opened the window and passed the plastic bag inside of which were two large packages of ice, Taufo’ou was in the driver’s seat, he passed it to him through his partner Losaline Uasike who was in the front passenger seat and then she placed it between the seats. He then returned to town whilst they proceeded to go towards the eastern side. The informant was in a rush to return to town and did not speak to any of them during this exchange.
He went straight to Toni’s residence at Sia’atoutai to halve the remaining package that was with him. Afterwards they smoked, had a beer then he returned home, and was preparing to get arrested.
The informant was also further asked as to why it was that he had a share of the consignment. He states it is because first, there had been no payment yet for Toni, at the same time it was practice that for a consignment, they would all contribute. The one package was not certain that it would be for the informant, it was supposed to all go to Toni, but in seeing that if they got arrested and he would have nothing on him, that is why or how he ended up with a share in the consignment.
Fifita had warned him that he and others would be coming to arrest him, which is what happened on the night of 13 August 2025. The informant was arrested with the halve of a package he had and he was kept in custody until December.
Going back to the arrangements that was being done for this consignment, the informant told the Court about the movement of money. On 12 or 13 August 2024, Taumoefolau told him he had sent $70 to $80k to Rodney Hala to address the money shortage. He told the informant this after the informant went to see De Feng Mo to try and retrieve the money that had still not reached Rodney Hala in the United Stated.
The informant inquired if it was safe to send the money in this way from his account in which Taumoefolau told him that he intends to purchase bikes/motorcycles which is how he has disguised this transfer of funds.

Unikoni Kivalu

Next, he was asked if he knew Unikoni Kivalu. The informant provided that he was the one who watched the consignment whilst it was still at the wharf. He knew this because he heard Mafi on the phone where this name was mentioned.
Not only that, because there had been on-going issues with the money, Rodney Hala required that if any money needed to go anywhere, Mafi would have to contact the informant first, then he would contact either Rodney Hala or Taumoefolau. Taumoefolau had told the informant that the amount of money missing was $100k and it had disappeared when Mafi was handling the funds.
Kivalu wanted “3” for a family emergency and later mentioned $30,000 over the phone. His understanding was that he would be paid $30,000 to watch the consignment and to help clear the consignment. This is what the informant provided in a subsequent phone conversation he says he had with Kivalu.
The informant passed the money he requested to Mafi to then give to Kivalu. The informant went out with Mafi on that weekend where he asked if the money had reached Kivalu and Mafi said it did.

Taufo’ou Fale’ofa

This Defendant is the informant’s maternal uncle. He provided that Ta’ufo’ou’s involvement with this consignment is that he was in contact with Tohitongi for the arrangements being made from America.^[17]
Ta’ufo’ou was also the one that provided to the informant, the information about the crate. Apart from that, the informant states that the wording from Rodney Hala in America is that this consignment is for Ta’ufo’ou.
Prior to this, the informant clarified he was the one that provided Toni’s name to Ta’ufo’ou for Ta’ufo’ou to pass on to Tohitongi to provide the crate under that name.

‘Eneasi Tangi Taumoefolau

In addition to the money referred to paragraph 183, the informant further stated that Taumoefolau would give him and Mafi amounts of money to be sent overseas. Towards the end of April to May, all the money was being given to the informant to send.
He then states the various amounts of money he received from Taumoefolau during this period of time would be part payment for the consignment in July and part payment for the consignment in these proceedings in August. These funds or money was handled by giving it to Mr Mo and at some instances by money giving it to other individuals, to send through western union and BSP to recipients in America connected to Rodney Hala.
There was also communication between the informant and Rodney Hala where they made reference to “Narge” and the “bald person.”^[18] The informant states that Narge is another name for Taumoefolau and the bald guy refers to Ta’ufo’ou. The Crown rely on this voice message where it states, “I am running to do the bald person’s box to be released.” ^[19]

Mafi Fatongiatau Lutui

Mafi’s involvement with the 13 August 2024 consignment is the money. The informant states that he was the one that checked the accounts and the names that the money would be sent to.
Mafi was also the one that gave the $3k to Kivalu when Kivalu requested the money for a family emergency.
There was also money being sent by Mafi that the informant did not know about as it was only between Mafi and Taumoefolau. The informant could not confirm what those funds were about or in relation to.

Tohitongi Fetu’u

Taufo’ou introduced this person to the informant on or about 12 August 2024. Taufo’ou gave Tohitongi my messenger account and Ta’ufo’ou told me this is his brother in the United States who is sending the crate.
From their communications together, Tohitongi referred to a broker and customs guy, the informant understood this to be a reference to people like Kivalu, to his understanding Ta’ufo’ou must have already told Tohitongi that a customs officer was already arranged.^[20]
On those communications, the informant further asked how it is packed in which Tohitongi provided that it is organised at the bottom and ready in a sack. This is in reference to where the illicit drugs were located in the consignment. Tohitongi then further suggests how the consignment should be dealt with once it is released using the term “food” as a reference to the illicit drugs.^[21]

Tevita ‘Elone Tu’I’ile’ila Shoji

The informant became acquainted with Shoji from when he would always go to Taumoefolau. Shoji did regular renovation jobs for Taumoefolau at various locations.
In relation to the consignment on 13 August, Shoji knew about it as his role was similar to that of a person who stocks the illicit drugs to keep them secure, delivers the drugs to the informant and watches areas for an anticipated meeting.
Putting it shortly, the informant states that Shoji did not have much involvement with the consignment and that his role in relation to illicit drugs would be to weigh it and deliver it to where it needed to go.
The informant then further provided evidence as to the involvement or how he was acquainted with the three female Defendants in which I have already found to have no case to answer and therefore do not need to go into detail on that.
He also further confirmed that in relation to Mr Mo, his fee or rate for dealing onward transmission of the money would be 20% of any amount that is given to him.
It is also noted that during examination in chief, the informant gave evidence that he had used methamphetamine. This was in April 2024 when allegations were made that he was involved in getting Teau arrested and Ta’ufo’ou wanted to meet with him to discuss those circumstances. He says despite drinking alcohol he still could not control his nerves in anticipation for the meeting so he thought to try methamphetamine as he had heard that it makes people confident. I make it plain that I have already exercised considerable caution in relation to the informant and I put out of mind this history of drug use that has been alluded to.
The informant was then cross-examined at great length by counsels for the Defendants. As I have already indicated earlier above, despite the vagueness and various inconsistencies that were identified and lapses in memory from the informant and I found his evidence to be credible however I emphasize and remind myself that due to his circumstances, his role and his status as an informant that his evidence must be treated with considerable caution.
1. FINDINGS

CR 15/2025 Tohitongi He Manatu Fetu’u

This defendant has been charged in Count 1 with the Unlawful Import of Illicit Drugs and count two engaging with it in dealing with another to import illicit drugs.
It is to be noted that the particulars of Count 1 state that the defendant “caused to be imported 3544.31g of methamphetamine into Tonga.” Caused to be imported is important. It is not alleged that this Defendant physically brought the drugs into the Kingdom but that through his agency such import was made possible. In other words, it was what he did that enabled the drugs to be brought into the Kingdom.
It is not disputed or if it is disputed, I find on compelling evidence that a crate containing 3544.31g of methamphetamine was brought into Tonga from the United States on or about 12 to 13 August 2024 to SF Oceania. The question is, did this Defendant first of all, know that this was happening and secondly, take steps to ensure that it did happen?
The Prosecution rely on a combination of evidence, the informant Joseph Taufa’s evidence, extracted communications, location data evidence and the record of interview, taken together they say, compel the Court to conclude to the criminal standard that this Defendant was a main player in this operation and was handling the US part of the enterprise.
On the 1 June 2024 Tohitongi departed Tonga for the United States and between June and August 2024 whilst he was there, he was in frequent contact via Facebook messenger with Ta’ufo’ou.
Fifita stated, that when he inspected Ta’ufo’ou’s phone in June, having being stopped for breaching curfew, there was a conversation there with this Defendant where Toni’s name and a phone number confirmed by Fifita to belong to Rodney Hala was in those communications. Rodney Hala it is suggested was the main supplier of the methamphetamine from the United States.
On or about August 2024 a vessel from Oakland California to Tonga carrying a consignment addressed to Toni (who has pleaded guilty) arrived and there were several communications between this Defendant and Ta’ufo’ou, the informant and Rodney Hala from 12 to 15 August 2024.^[22]
What was the reason for all this activity? The Crown submit and I accept it was because the consignment arriving in Tonga was very valuable. The reason this was so was not because the consignment was of family provisions or tools as suggested by this Defendant but because it contained methamphetamine.
Unknown to this Defendant one of the persons thought to be involved in this exercise Joseph Taufa was a police informant who is able to give evidence of his involvement with each of those involved in the importation.
There were a number of conversations by messenger between this defendant and Joseph Taufa in which the defendant gave Joseph details of crate, including reference to customs officer who would inspect the crate and where in the crate were the packages of methamphetamine was packed.
He described the drugs as food and that his brother-in-law would take the crate in the lorry after he takes the food. The informant responded that he would take it at Sia’atoutai as it is safer.^[23] That is what happened, by the time the informant arrived in Sia’atoutai, the crate was no longer there and Toni informed him that he had already removed the illicit drugs from the sack of rice and placed them in a red bag and gave them to the informant.
It is true that I have already found that this Defendant’s wife had no case to answer because her involvement was simply to be present at SF Oceania when the crate was loaded onto a red lorry which she and her husband owned but she played no further part in its transportation or distribution. Although considerable suspicion arose as to her involvement, I took the view that it did not quite reach the criminal standard of certainty in that in my view at that stage, a jury properly directed taking the prosecution’s case at his highest, could not convict, but of course this does not mean that this Defendant himself was innocent of what was going on, otherwise the text messages and the very fact that the crate did contain drugs is inexplicable.
What the Defence is suggesting is that this was a terrible misfortune. This defendant was sending tools and family provisions to Tonga. The fact that in the very same crate was a large amount of drugs which with a relative’s help, the consignment was transported from SC Oceania in Tongatapu and stopped by Toni’s residence in Sia’atoutai before he went to his residence in Hofoa was entirely coincidental and that the evidence of his involvement coming from the informant should not be relied on.
I find such a conclusion fly in the face of the evidence and indeed common sense. I have no doubt that this Defendant arranged the consignment from his base in the United States.
I have no hesitation in finding that he knew very well what was put in the crate and where it was going. I have no doubt at all that he was intimately involved in the importation and that his explanation was that his tools were placed into somebody else’s crate because there was room to spare was disingenuous and I reject that.
I of course accept that the location evidence is only relevant insofar as it relates to the telephone itself but I reject the suggestion that at the material time it was used not by him but by someone else, Viliami Lavaka and that there was an exchange whereby this defendant obtained the telephone in question which was an iPhone and in return exchanged a Samsung. I reject this evidence out of hand.
I bear in mind of course that this Defendant gave evidence, I accept without hesitation that to do so places a burden on any Defendant and proper latitude must be given. In his evidence he came across as a pleasant individual but as his evidence progressed it became more and more unconvincing and he displayed all the hallmarks of a witness who is unable to face the evidence against him.
Apart from the matter I just adverted to in relation to the iPhone, his attempt to overcome the location data namely that the phone in question was exchanged with Viliami Lavaka is simply incredible.
It follows that in my view and I so hold this Defendant was a linchpin in the American end of the operation and that he caused the drugs in question to be imported into Tonga and he therefore is guilty of Count 1. As I have already explained it is not necessary to consider Count 2 being an alternative. but even if it were I would hold that all the ingredients are established to the criminal standard.

CR 9/2025 Ta’ufo’ou Fale’ofa

This Defendant did not give evidence. That is his right and no adverse inference can be drawn from that fact. However, by that same token he has produced no evidence to contradict or undermine facts which point to his guilt.
For example, he drove the vehicle with his wife as a passenger towards Kolonga. He was pursued by police and two packages containing methamphetamine were thrown out of the passenger window by his partner. Also in the car was a weighing scale in the door compartment on the driver side.
I have found that the wife could not be found to be in possession of the drugs, but it does not follow that the husband was innocent of the contents of the package. The fact that they were thrown out of the window suggests that someone in the car realised their true content.
It is stretching credulity to believe that the wife would have known this but not the husband particularly as the weighing scales were in the husband side of the car. But more powerful and complicit of this Defendant’s involvement can to be found in his statement taken by the police on the 29 August 2024.^[24]
Now the admissibility of this statement had not been challenged, nor in my view could it be. Among his answers are the following referring to the first Defendant, he said “I was acquainted with him because he was a prison officer and we were in contact on Facebook..... in relation to a box to be brought to Tonga but methamphetamine would be inside.”^[25]
In his interview, he states that he was asked by the first defendant to provide a name to go on the crate. He then got in touch with “Sefo Mafi”, referring to the informant and asked him if he knows anyone that can provide his name so that the box can be addressed to.
The informant then sent him Toni’s name, who then passed it on to the first Defendant and that is the name placed on the crate to enable it to be imported into Tonga
Later the interview continues where he states that, “Our arrangement is, when the box arrives to Tonga his partner Lisa will pick up the box together with the person in which his name the letter was addressed to. We were on video call recently but I’m unsure of the day but it was the month July. It was confirmed that the cargo has departed America and is estimated that the cargo will arrive in August. It was arranged that, I will be given two pounds and the rest will be given to others he did not tell me who but it was a total of eight (8) pounds of ice.”^[26]
By agreeing to provide a name which could be used to enable the box to be imported it is obvious that by so doing he was enabling others to carry out the importation and accordingly in my judgement together with all the evidence I have summarised, I am satisfied to the criminal standard that he is guilty of Count 11 of engaging with others and Count 13, weighing scale that was plainly found on the his side of the vehicle. Count 12 needs no consideration as a further alternative charge.

CR 14/2025 ‘Eneasi Tangi Taumoefolau

A screenshot of a telegraphic transfer on between Taumoefolau and Rodney Hala was sent to Charity (former seventh Defendant) indicates that $74,739.09TOP ($30,937 USD) was sent from Luxury Car Rentals to Rodney Hala in the United States.^[27] This same screenshot was also sent to Shoji later.
The owner of Luxury Car Rentals is this defendant. It has been suggested that the purpose of this transfer was to buy 2 to 3 Harley Davidson Motorcycles, but no documentary evidence of this quite valuable sale has been produced nor have the motorcycles themselves been traced.
Further, it has not been explained why quite a valuable sum of money was sent not to a motorcycle trader or retail outlet as one would expect but to somebody called Rodney Hala who is for all intents and purposes is a private individual.
However, of more importance is the evidence of the drone footage at the Defendant’s house where the consignment of drugs is seen in a red bag taken together with other evidence that it is the same illicit drugs from the SC Oceania at Tongatapu to a residence in Sia’atoutai then to the Defendant’s residence at Tofoa.^[28]
This is firsthand evidence and shows this Defendant carrying a red bag from his residence and placing it in the front passenger seat of a black car belonging to Shoji. This is after Joeseph Taufa is seen walking into the residence holding a red bag with this Defendant following behind him.
Moments after, Shoji drives out of the premises and is very shortly thereafter arrested and red bag found in the vehicle and confirmed later to contain methamphetamine. I am satisfied that the Defendant had sufficient knowledge of the red bag to take the trouble of bringing it out and placing it in the front passenger seat.
That red bag contained methamphetamine and nothing else so if the Defendant did not know what was in the bag why had he placed it there, in the vehicle? It seems to me that this Defendant was caught red-handed placing what he must have known was methamphetamine into Shoji’s car to be driven away and was driven away and would have been used to distribute the drugs if it had not been apprehended by the Police.
There is also communications between this Defendant and Mafi Lutui in relation to payments that were said to be lost and where this Defendant is setting out to Mafi the amount of payments made, to the total of $120K to Rodney Hala.^[29]
Taking all these matters together including my findings made in the “no case” stage, I consider the evidence against him compelling as one of the financiers of this operation causing the illicit drugs to be imported and meets the criminal standard beyond a reasonable doubt. I accordingly, find him guilty of Count 18, causing the unlawful import of illicit drugs namely the 2334.09g. Count 19 & 20 are no longer relevant to consider in light of that finding.

CR 6/2025 Tevita ‘Elone Tu’i’ile’ila Shoji

This Defendant is charged with Count 24 with enabling others to import drugs and Count 25 in the alternative of being in possession of those drugs.
There is powerful drone evidence to connect this defendant with a red bag containing 2,236.08g of methamphetamine. The drone evidence shows that when the drugs arrived in the black voxy it was taken by the informant into Taumoefolau’s residence then Taumoefolau came out with the bag and placed in Shoji’s car on the front passenger seat.
Shortly after, this Defendant got into the car and moved the red bag to the rear of the vehicle before driving off when he was apprehended shortly after by an unmarked police vehicle. It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence to connect this defendant with the red bag and so, its contents, when he picked it up and placed it at the rear of the vehicle.
He must have realised what he was doing when he attempted to escape when approached by admittedly an unmarked police car. That suggests to me that he had guilty knowledge of what was in the red bag. Given that there is powerful evidence that the fifth defendant knew what he was doing when he placed the bag in this defendant's car, what did this defendant think was in it? He claims that he thought it was tools but if so, why panic when apprehended by the police?
A significant piece of evidence namely a screenshot of a receipt for $74,739TOP which had been sent to him by the fifth defendant and was he said for the purchase of 2 to 3 Harley Davidson bikes has reply was “wow.”^[30]
The first question that arises is why would he be sent a screenshot of what was essentially was a perfectly legitimate transaction and if so why would he exclaim, when receipt of this rather non-descript information?
According to this witness, the fifth defendant did not know Joseph Taufa and was annoyed when he turned up at his residence to drop off some tools when asked why this was, he said that the fifth defendant did not like people turning up at his property.
This strikes me somewhat strange because the evidence is that a few minutes after the arrival of the Joesph, he entered into the residence with fifth defendant following behind him. Shortly thereafter, whilst this Defendant was still putting up the fourth poster, the fifth Defendant was placing the red bag in Shoji’s motor car.
Let me say a word about this Defendant who gave evidence, again, I found him perfectly respectful, and again I bear in mind any strain suffered by a Defendant situated as he is, but he came across not as a main player, but someone who was a willing subordinate to what was happening and someone who knew very well what was in the red bag.
At times, the evidence forced him into mendacity for example, he was asked about the cash found in the bedroom shared with wife, now he did not say that he knew nothing of this cash, his explanation was it was the result of a land deal/transaction.
No documents were provided at that stage and I invited him to do so but no documents were forthcoming. I find that failure significant and drives me to the view that his explanation for the money and therefore his credibility as a witness is destroyed. For the avoidance of doubt, I simply do not believe this Defendant’s account that he believed the contents of the bag were tools.
I am satisfied that his role was part of the distribution network i.e he was given the red bag either to stock, pass on to others or to sell himself. In saying that, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that this Defendant had engaged with another for the importation of the illicit drugs that he is charged with in the indictment.
However, he would certainly be in unlawful possession of the drugs, but I struggle to find how being in possession in this way amounts to engaging with others in causing the importation which had already taken place, or at least there is a doubt about that and I therefore cannot convict him of this Count.
Accordingly I acquit this Defendant of Count 24, namely the engaging with others charge.
In considering the alternative charge, Count 25 for Unlawful Possession, the evidential burden of proving that he was not in unlawful possession falls upon him.^[31] By any stretch of the imagination he has not discharged the burden, accordingly, I find his possession to be unlawful and find him guilty of Count 25.

CR 24/2025 Uinikoni Kivalu

This defendant is a customs officer and when the crate concerned in the current indictment arrived on the 12^th or 13^th of August, he was already in custody because of his alleged involvement in an import of methamphetamine seized by the police on the 9^th of August.
This of course does not mean, nor can it mean that he can evade liability for any part he may have played in a subsequent importation, but it does throw light on statement he made to the police on the 10 August 2024.
In that statement he says that having been contacted by the Mafi Lutui and he was seeking details of an import of methamphetamine so that he could inform the police. There appears to be no evidence that he ever did so but on by the same token it cannot mean but this refers to the drugs on the indictment.
There appears to be no direct evidence of this witness coming into contact with this crate containing the methamphetamine. There is no evidence that he was on the wharf at any material time.
Indeed, he was arrested by Fifita on 9 August 2024. The voluntary statement by this Defendant made on 10 August 2024 does not advance the case against him in this indictment, it relates to an earlier import and in any event is self-serving.
A number of assertions are made that the material relied on by the Prosecution are hearsay. I must therefore remind myself what is and is not hearsay. Hearsay may succinctly be stated as “an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted.”^[32]
This is often misunderstood to mean that what a person says to another cannot be relied on evidentially (i.e. to prove the truth of its contents) if the person to whom the assertion is made gives evidence. What the party said to the person giving evidence does not prove the contents of what he/she says but does establish that something was said, but not that it was true. I note that this is in accordance with what Hughes LJ said in Twist.^[33]
The Prosecution submit that since the person who said the matter and who heard the matter gave evidence it is not hearsay and further that a statement made by a co-defendant the intention of which was not to implicate this defendant but merely to confirm that money had been passed to the intended Defendant and therefore the hearsay rule is not violated.^[34] I cannot agree.
Let me spell it out what Mafi said to Joeseph Taufa is evidence that a conversation between them took place but not what that conversation was as respects non-parties to it.^[35]
I hold that all conversations between the informant and Mafi Lutui were inadmissible hearsay in so far as they are relied upon evidentially against non-parties to those exchanges. Further, I should deal with other communications between the informant and other defendants. The crown rely on communications between the first defendant and the informant in which reference is made to someone the crown says is this Defendant, but not only are those matters in themselves inadmissible hearsay as against non-parties to the communications but they do not implicate this Defendant since they only referred to the “customs guy,”^[36] and nothing to explicitly name who the customs guy is by way of admissible and not hearsay evidence.
The fundamental difficulties as I see it in the Prosecution’s case against this defendant is crystallised where it is stated: at “.... The Crown submits that the reason why Kivalu was asking for money from Mafi and then went on to ask for money for yet another person he does not know well (in fact only communicated with in the text that were extracted) - the Informant which he saved in his contacts as Toko2 - is because he knew these two were his contact points to him getting his payment for the drugs he would clear on the 13 August 2024.”^[37]
With respect this does not follow, and it does not establish to the criminal standard that the money identified was a bribe to allow the 13 August 2024 consignment to pass customs scrutiny despite the further message, “to be taken from the thing.” ^[38]
I accept that it is highly suspicious and that at the halfway stage this Defendant certainly had a case to answer but applying the criminal standard I must ask myself can I be sure that the money was a bribe or for another unconnected purpose? It might have been of course that the purpose was itself criminal but not the crime alleged in this indictment.
I have given careful consideration to the text messages relied on by the Crown and as to their assertion that the Court is entitled to interpret the evidence as it sees fit.
I entirely agree but the Court does not have a free hand to interpret such texts in a way which implicates the Defendant in the criminal conduct alleged in the indictment unless it is sure.
I am unable to come to that conclusion. It follows despite my rejection as I do of many of the submissions made by the defence, for example, the fact that the 14 minute interview took place at 3:45am which I regard as entirely unobjectionable and in which any event does not advance the case any further because no admissions are made, I am unable to find that the criminal standard has been met on the evidence before me and accordingly this Defendant must be acquitted of the only charge against him here, namely, Count 21.

CR 25/2025 Mafi Fatongiatau Lutui

The case against this defendant is that he arranged for the money knowing that this was payment for the import of methamphetamine from the fifth defendant to Rodney Hala and members of his family in the United States.
Rodney Hala it is said was the linchpin, the instigator of the enterprise and it was to him that the cost of the shipment concerned in the indictment was to be paid.
Joeseph Taufa stated that following cultivating a relationship with Mafi he was told by Mafi that Kivalu needed money urgently and as a result he gave 3000 to Mafi to give to Kivalu as part of a $30,000 payment to ensure that the consignment of the 13^th of August would be released.
This defendant later confirmed that this money had been passed to Kivalu and as I have previously indicated it is not of course evidence against Kivalu because as against him is hearsay nevertheless it does implicate Mafi and established first that the money was passed by Mafi and second that Mafi knew with the alleged purpose of the money was. Putting it plainly, the evidence against Kivalu is founded on inadmissible hearsay but not against Mafi.
There is also telephonic evidence about this Defendant’s communication with the fifth defendant which establishes a link between this defendant and Rodney Hala and involves a dispute about whether Hala received the money he was expecting.
The telephonic communications between this defendant and Rodney Hala between the 24^th of July 2024 on the 12^th of August 2024 raises a number of these issues. Why was this defendant communicating with Rodney Hala who I find as result of the totality of the evidence was plainly involved in the enterprise to import drugs in into Tonga?
Why was there a dispute about the amount of money? There are also a number of messages passing between this defendant and the fifth defendant beginning on the 23 July 2024 in which a breakdown of the money to be sent to Hala is detailed and speaks to the money issue which Rodney Hala is concerned about.
Now I have already found that the fifth defendant was heavily implicated in this enterprise and indeed have convicted him unlawful import of the illicit drugs that he placed into Shoji’s vehicle.
Viewing the evidence as a whole, it seems to me that the criminal standard is established that this defendant was a facilitator in that he arranged for money to be transferred to the ultimate beneficiary or tried to do so knowing that the purpose of the money was payment for drugs to that extent it being bought into Tonga.
I find however that his role is sufficiently distant from the actual importation of the drugs and I am not satisfied to the criminal standard that he caused the import of the illicit drugs and find him not guilty Count 22.

I am however satisfied to the criminal standard that this Defendant did engage with another to import these illicit and I therefore find him guilty of Count 23.

FINAL RESULT

CR 15/2025 Tohitongi He Manatu Fetu’u

For Count 1, Unlawful Import of an Illicit Drug (3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find you guilty.
Count 2 as an alternative is not necessary to consider.

CR 9/2025 Ta’ufo’ou Fale’ofa

For Count 11, Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug (897.71g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act and Count 13, Unlawful Possession of a Utensil (weighing scale), contrary to section 5A of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find you guilty.
Count 12 is not necessary to consider as an alternative charge.

CR 14/2025 ‘Eneasi Tangi Taumoefolau

For Count 18, Unlawful Import of an Illicit Drug (2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find you guilty.
Count 19 and 20 are not necessary to consider as alternative charges.

CR 6/2025 Tevita ‘Elone Tu’i’ile’ila Shoji

For Count 24: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug (2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find the criminal standard has not been satisfied and find the Defendant not guilty and must be acquitted of Count 24.
In considering the alternative, Count 25: Possession of an Illicit Drug (2236.08g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find the Defendant guilty.

CR 24/2025 Uinikoni Kivalu

For Count 21: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug (3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find the Defendant not guilty and acquit the Defendant of this charge.

CR 25/2025 Mafi Fatongiatau Lutui

For Count 22: Unlawful Import of an Illicit Drug (3544.31g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 3(e) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find the Defendant not guilty.
In considering the alternative, Count 23: Engaging in Dealings with Another to Import an Illicit Drug (3544.31g methamphetamine) contrary to section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act, I find there is sufficient evidence to the criminal standard and find the Defendant guilty of this Count.
That is the order of the Court.

(sgd)

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

This is an amended Judgement issued pursuant to Order 28 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules to correct a clerical error in paragraph 250.

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

^[1] Ruling (No Case to Answer) 13 October 2025.
^[2] Above n 1.
^[3] Above n 2.
^[4] Exhibit 2 – Drone Footage of Sia’atoutai
^[5] Exhibit 3 – Drone Footage of Tofoa
^[6] Court Book 1, p 659 -789.
^[7] Court Book 1, p940-950.
^[8] Court Book 1, p934, Search List – Exhibit 3.
^[9] Above n 8.
^[10] Court Book 1, p942.
^[11] Court Book 1, p321-324.
^[12] Court Book 1, p327.
^[13]Court Book 1, p1028-1038.
^[14] Court Book 1, p514-522.
^[15] Court Book 2, p22-26.
^[16] Exhibit 5.
^[17] Exhibit 4, p 4, row 2.
^[18] Court Book 2, p 1035.
^[19] Above n 18, row 6.
^[20] Court Book 2, p1150.
^[21] Court Book 2, p1145.
^[22] Prosecution Closing Submissions filed on 21 October 2025, Annexure A, p2-6.
^[23] Court Book 2, p1145.
^[24] Court Book 1, p514 -522.
^[25] Court Book 1, p516.
^[26] Court Book 1, p517.
^[27] Court Book 1, p916.
^[28] Exhibit 3 – Drone Footage at Tofoa.
^[29] Court Book 2, p103-107.
^[30] Court Book 2, p958.
^[31] Illicit Drugs Control Act, section 4(1).
^[32] Cross on Evidence, 4^th New Zealand Edition, p446.
^[33] R v Twist [2011] EWCA Crim 12143, para 5.
^[34]Above n 22, para 31(6).
^[35] Above n 32.
^[36] Above n 20.
^[37] Above n 34, at para 31(3).
^[38] Above n 37, at para 31(4).

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/to/cases/TOSC/2025/82.html