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

R v Tupe [2025] TOSC 95; CR 126 of 2025 (5 December 2025)

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

CR 126 of 2025

BETWEEN:
REX
- Prosecution

AND:
CHRISTOPHER ‘OPETI TUPE
- Accused

SENTENCE AND SENTENCING REMARKS

BEFORE:
HON. JUSTICE PAUL GARLICK KC

Appearances:
Mr. ‘A Fisi’iahi for the Crown Prosecution
Ms. T Kolokihakaufisi for the Defendant

Date:
5 December 2025

The charges

1. On the 2nd September 2025, the Defendant pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, charging him with causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 106(1)(2)(c) of the Criminal Offences Act. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The Court notes that he entered this plea at the earliest opportunity to do; and, accordingly, the Court will give him maximum credit for his guilty plea. The starting point for the appropriate sentence will be reduced by one third. The Court also notes that the defendant, who is 20 years old, does not have any previous convictions.
2. In the sentencing submissions which have been provided to the Court, the prosecution and the defence have set out their submissions as to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case. In my judgment, the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances are as follows.

Aggravating Factors

1. The seriousness of the offence.
2. The use of a deadly weapon.

Mitigating Factors

1. The defendant’s early guilty plea.
2. The fact that he has no previous convictions.

100. The fact that he cooperated fully with the police.

4. He has demonstrated genuine remorse for his offending conduct.
5. His young age. He was 19 years old at the time of the offence.
6. He has strong support within his community and church.
7. The victim of the offence appears to have forgiven the defendant for his offending conduct, and has accepted gifts by way of reconciliation.
   

Sentencing comparable decisions

3. The prosecution and the defence have provided the court with a number of cases which they say are relevant and comparable to the instant case. I have considered those cases carefully. Of course, no cases are truly comparable, and it is for the Court to determine the appropriate, proportionate and just sentence in each case, having regard to the particular facts of the case.
   

The offending conduct

4. The offending conduct in this case was extremely serious. The defendant and the complainant had been drinking together. At some point, the defendant drove off in the complainant’s car, which angered the complainant who went looking for the defendant. He found the defendant in a bar in Tofu and they began to fight. The fight ended and the complainant took the defendant to his home. The defendant then armed himself with a machete, returned to the complainant’s home and attacked him with the machete. He repeatedly swung the machete at the complainant. The blows landed on the complainant’s left arm and caused very serious and permanent injuries. The blows with the machete also caused injuries to other parts of the complainant’s body. The complainant sustained a deep laceration to his left wrist, some 6 centimetres by 4 centimetres in length and breadth.
5. When the defendant was arrested, he cooperated fully with the police and admitted the offence.
   

The pre-sentence report and the letters in mitigation submitted on behalf of the defendant

6. I have read and considered carefully both the pre-sentence report, dated 30th September 2025, and the letters in mitigation submitted on behalf of the defendant.
   

The appropriate sentence

7. The Crown submit that this offence passes the threshold for a custodial sentence. I agree with that analysis of the appropriate sentence in this case. There must be an immediate custodial sentence, which reflects the seriousness of the offence. Having considered all the facts of the case and the submissions made by the prosecution and the defence, in my judgment the appropriate starting point for the sentence in this case is imprisonment for a period of 5 years. That sentence will be reduced by one third, to reflect the defendant’s cooperation with the police and his early plea of guilty. Accordingly, the sentence for this offence is imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months.
   

Suspension of part of the sentence

8. The defence submits that I should suspend the entire sentence of imprisonment. I cannot accede to that submission, as this offence is so serious that it demands that the defendant should serve some time in custody. However, having regard to the principles set out in the case of Mo’unga v R [1998] Tonga LR 154, I am satisfied that there is a real prospect that the defendant will rehabilitate himself whilst serving his sentence, and that a period of suspension will assist in his rehabilitation. Accordingly, I order that the final 2 years of the sentence of imprisonment shall be suspended for a period of 2 years on the following conditions. The defendant shall:
   1. not commit any offence punishable with imprisonment during the period of suspension (2 years);
   2. be placed on probation for the period of the suspension;
   100. complete an anger management and alcohol education programme, as directed by the probation service;
   4. perform a period of community service, as directed by the probation service;
   5. shall report to the probation service within 48 hours of his release from prison.
      

Final sentence

9. The sentence is one of imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 4 months, the final 2 years of which shall be suspended for 2 years, upon the conditions set out above.
   

This is the sentence of the Court

NUKU’ALOFA

HON. JUSTICE PAUL GARLICK KC
JUDGE

5 December 2025