IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 	
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY                                                                    
CR 67 of 2024

REX
-v-
VILIAMI TAUKEI’AHO

VERDICT

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE TUPOU KC
To:              Mr J. Fifita for the Prosecution
                    Ms L. Tonga for the Defendant
Trial:           6-7 November, 2025
Judgment: 20 February, 2026

The proceedings
1.	On 1 July 2024, the Defendant pleaded not guilty to:
Count 1 -  one count of serious causing bodily harm when he wilfully and without lawful justification, hit Tomasi Kitekei’aho’s (referred to hereafter as “Tomasi”) foot with a machete causing injury.
Count 2 – one count of common assault, when he wilfully and without lawful justification, hit Vaokakala Tupouhia (referred to hereafter as “Vaokakala”) with a machete but missed without her consent.
2.	For count 1 section 107(1) and (2)(c) of the Criminal Offences Act state:
“(1)	Every person who wilfully and without lawful justification causes harm to any person in any manner or by any means whatsoever shall be guilty of an offence under this section. 
(2) 	“Harm” for the purposes of this section means —
	( c) any wound which is not severe…
(4) 	The offence of serious causing bodily harm — 
(a) is punishable by a term of imprisonment for any period not exceeding 5 years”
3.	For count 2 section 112 (f) of the said Act state:
“Every person who wilfully and without lawful justification — …….
(f) applies or attempts to apply force to another person directly or indirectly;
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for any period not exceeding one year or to both.

The Elements
4.	To secure a conviction against the accused, the Crown must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, each and all of the following pre-requisite elements, that:

Count 1
a)	on 13 February, 2024, at Pea, 
b)	the Defendant,
b)	wilfully,
c)	without lawful justification,
d)	caused injury to Tomasi’s right foot,
e)	by hitting it with a machete.

Count 2
a)	on 13 February, 2024, at Pea, 
b)	the Defendant,
c)	wilfully, 
d)	without lawful justification,
e)	attempted to hit Vaokakala with a machete, 
f)	without her consent. 
		
The Prosecution’s Case
5.	On 13 February 2024 at around 3pm in the afternoon, Vaokakala, the second complainant was at her husband’s home (referred to hereafter as the “House”) at Pea with her brother, Tomasi, the first complainant and his family. They were frying homemade cakes. 
6.	On or around 5pm that day, Vaokakala’s father in law, Sioeli Tupouhia (‘Sioeli’), approached and asked Vaokakala why she was still at the House and demanded she leave immediately. Vaokakala did not leave and Sioeli left for the accused’s residence.
7.	Shortly after, the accused appeared with a machete and shouted at Vaokakala asking what happened between her and Sioeli. Vaokakala retorted to ask his mother. The accused headed towards the House, shouting for her to get out or he will chop them into pieces. 
8.	When the accused reached the veranda, he pushed the wooden gate open and swung the machete at Vaokakala who ducked and the machete landed on the wooden gate instead.    
9.	The accused then pushed Vaokakalala to the side and pursued Tomasi with the machete. Tomasi jumped over the veranda but his right foot was stuck on the railings. The accused struck the base of Tomasi’s right foot with the machete. Tomasi managed to get over the railings and ran. 
10.	Immediately, a chase ensued between the two with Tomasi managing to escape to the after the accused slipped over a pile of rocks.
11.	Tomasi was taken to the Hospital where Dr. ‘Eliesa Ma’u on the same day attended to him. The Doctor confirmed that the first and second toes on his right foot were injured.
12.	The police later arrested the accused. While in custody, the accused was asked about the machete used. The accused claimed he discarded it at the Haáteiho beach. A police search of the Ha’ateiho beach failed to uncover the machete. Then the accused revealed the machete was in his vehicle the whole time. The police seizede the machete from his vehicle. 

The Evidence
13.	On behalf of the Prosecution, the court heard from Tomasi Kitekei’aho, his wife Fai’ana Kitekei’aho and Dr. ‘Eliesa Ma’u. For the defence, the Defendant elected to give evidence as the sole witness. 
14.	A trial booklet was produced by the Prosecution that consisted of: the Prosecution’s opening address, indictment, police investigation diary, medical report by Dr. ‘Eliesa Ma’u, photographs of Tomasi’s injuries, the crime scene -the House, the front gate of the House, statements by Tomasi, Fai’ana and Vaokakala to the police. After listening to the witnesses, I make the following findings of facts. 
15.	On 13 February 2024, Tomasi, his wife and child were staying with Vaokakala at her House at Pea. They had been there for some months as Tomasi was finishing the construction of the House for Vaokakala and her husband Koloni. Koloni’s parents, Sioeli and Naomi, also lived at the House.  
16.	On the same day at around 5pm, Vaokakala, Tomasi and his family were cooking for some church obligation. Tomasi, Fai’ana and their child were sitting at a table on the veranda while Vaokakala was inside in the kitchen cooking. 
17.	An argument had occurred between Sioeli and Vaokakala earlier that day. After the argument Sioeli left on foot to the accused’s house. The accused, is Sioeli’s son and Koloni’s brother. When the accused saw Sioeli, he was visibly upset and crying. The accused found out that his parents were told to move out of the House.  
18.	The accused then drove Sioeli back to the House in his work truck. The truck carried all his work tools including a machete. As they were arriving at the House, Koloni contacted the accused on his phone. The accused was shocked at Koloni’s reaction, when he joked about them asking their parents to move out. The accused tried to persuade Koloni that it would not be long before their parents were gone and he would be free to his House and property. 
19.	When the telephone conversation ended, the accused went to take out pieces of timber from a storage shelter on the property. He said it was to build a house for his parents on his tax allotment. Tomasi and Fai’ana saw the accused taking the timber from storage. 
20.	Then Fai’ana saw the accused take a machete from the back of his truck and started cursing, swearing and threatening that he would cut them up with it. The accused walked toward the House calling Vaokakala’s name. When Vaokakala came out, she walked towards the gate and when Viliami approached, she said “Viliami enough”. Vaokakala was standing by the gate from the inside. The accused was just outside the gate and brandished the machete at Vaokakala.  Vaokakala ducked and the machete hit the gate leaving a visible mark on it. 
21.	The accused then pushed the gate open and pushed Vaokakala aside. Still cursing and swearing he charged towards Tomasi with the machete. Tomasi got up from his chair and ran across the veranda. The accused chased after him. Tomasi jumped over the veranda railings, headfirst. Before landing on the ground, Tomasi felt something strike his right foot and experienced a tingling feeling on the same foot. Fai’ana told the court she witnessed the accused strike Tomasi’s foot and saw the tip of the machete hit his foot.  
22.	After landing, Tomasi ran around outside and towards the front of the property, pausing by the cement slab at the front of the House. It was then that he recognised the cut on his foot. Tomasi could see a blood trail from where he had run from to where he was. He called Fai’ana to fetch a piece of cloth to bind the cut on his foot. Fai’ana did not get any cloth but told Tomasi to run to the neighbours before the accused caught up with him. Tomasi called out for his slippers, which he left on the veranda. Fai’ana did not give him his slippers as she was already calling the police. Tomasi then walked to the neighbouring property.
23.	Meanwhile, the accused had run around outside of the veranda after Tomasi and slipped on a pile of rocks outside. He got up and shouted out that he was going to get his gun to shoot them all. 
24.	Shortly after, Tomasi was taken to the hospital and was attended to by Dr. Eliesa Ma’u. Dr Ma’u produced his report. The report described the injury to Tomasi’s foot as “lacerations on base of 1st and 2nd toe on right foot” and “soft tissue injuries due to sharp trauma”.

Considerations       
25.	Sadly, the offending here has clearly arisen from an unresolved family dispute that got out of hand.However regrettable these situations turn out in the end the courts do not sympathise with people who insist on taking the law into their own hands.
26.	Here, the accused did not deny he swung the machete twice on the evening of 13 February 2024. Those times represent the separate charges against him today. I will deal with the charges in the order in which they occurred.  
Count 2
27.	I am satisfied on the evidence, that at the relevant time, the accused was angry because his parents were told to move out of the House by both Vaokakala and his brother, Koloni. The accused spoke about Sioeli’s medical condition and appeared to imply that it was not appropriate for him to be around his kids. He did not elaborate on that but I find the view supported by his evidence that he needed to build a house on his town allotment to house his parents.  
28.	 I find this was the motive behind the conduct that amounted to the offending against Vaokakala and Tomasi here. In his own evidence, the accused volunteered that Tomasi had apologized to him before the chase ensued and then said that he realised if he forgave Tomasi, he would still have to build the house for his parents and decided he would try and remove them instead.  
29.	I found Fai’ana to be a reliable and credible witness. She maintained her evidence even under cross examination. Tomasi’s evidence too was largely reliable except for part of his evidence where under cross examination, he agreed that the accused used the machete to open the gate. This did not match his evidence in chief where he said that the accused was outside of the gate when he swung the machete at Vaokakala. 
30.	Tomasi’s evidence in chief on that point is consistent with Fai’ana’s evidence and as mentioned, I found Fai’ana’s evidence reliable. To the point where I prefer her evidence wherever it differs from Tomasi’s and the accused. 
31.	The accused did not strenuously deny and in fact, partly admitted the threats of violence and foul language he was shouting towards Vaokakala, her brother, sister-in-law and 3-year-old child. When his conduct was put to him under cross examination his justification was he intended to scare them because they were mocking him. 
32.	The accused accepted he swung the machete for the first time outside of the entrance gate to the veranda of the House. I find that he did so in the immediate presence of Vaokakala to scare her, as he said. I believe that he did not intend to injure Vaokakala and as he said it would not have been difficult for him had that been his intention. 
33.	However, that does not matter because assault is committed when the Defendant intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.
34.	The question is whether the accused, wilfully and without lawful justification attempted to hit Vaokakala with the machete directly or indirectly and whether that caused Vaokakala to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. 
35.	The Prosecution’s evidence was that the accused with machete in hand, while cursing profanities towards Vaokakala, her brother, sister-in-law and toddler, threatened he would cut them up with his machete, called Vaokakala out while walking toward them at the House and while immediately facing Vaokakala outside the said entrance gate to the veranda, he lifted and brandished the machete towards her, causing Vaokakala to duck out of the way causing the machete to land on the side of the gate leaving a visible cut on it. 
36.	Before the accused used the machete, Vaokakala had told him “enough”. That act in my view, demonstrate she did not consent to his presence with the machete and is supported by her lodging a complaint with the police which has led to the present charges.
37.	Similarly, she demonstrated her apprehension of immediate danger and violence when she ducked out of the machete’s way. 
38.	The defence argued that Vaokakala was not called to give evidence and that is correct. But after examining the evidence presented on behalf of the Prosecution, I do not consider Vaokakala’s absence damaging to the Prosecution’s case. In fact, on the basis of Tomasi and Fai’ana’s evidence, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that:
a) the accused wilfully and without lawful justification,
b)	attempted to strike Vaokakala with his machete directly or indirectly, 
c) causing her to duck in apprehension of the danger that she could be hit by the said machete, and 
d)	Vaokakala did not consent to the accused striking her with the machete.  
39.	For those reasons, I find the Prosecution has proven each of the pre-requisite elements of the charges against the accused under Count 2. 
	Count 1
40.	As for Count 1, the accused accepted he chased Tomasi with the machete and while Tomasi jumped over the veranda railings, he swung the machete at him. This was the second time the accused swung his machete at someone on the relevant date. The accused was not sure or did not know if the machete hit Tomasi’s foot or not. 
41.	Tomasi for his part said, he felt the machete hit his foot together with a tingling sensation. That is consistent with Fai’ana’s evidence that she saw the tip of the machete hit Tomasi’s foot. 
42.	Tomasi only appreciated his foot was wounded when he paused at the cement slab at the front of the House. He spoke of a visible blood trail from where he had run from to the cement slab. He said at the time there was no grass along that area so he could see the blood on the ground.   
43.	It was suggested by the Defendant and his counsel that Tomasi’s injuries were from stones, glass and roofing tin from where Tomasi fell and where he crossed to the neighbouring property. Those suggestions were not supported by evidence or of any strength to overcome the direct and contrasting evidence given by Tomasi and Fai’ana. 
44.	I note Ms Tonga’s suggestions based on the Doctor’s description of the wound on Tomasi’s second toe as being “jaggery”. Respectfully, that is the doctor’s reasonable opinion based on his experience.  Conversely, I prefer to rely on the direct evidence before me that the cut was caused by a sharp object and that sharp object was the accused’s machete and nothing else. 
45.	Ms Tonga also challenged the charge under Count 2 and suggested the wound on Tomasi’s toes were not serious. I understood the suggestion to be that Count 2 ought to have brought under “simple harm”.
46.	Mr Fifita argued that the suggestion was not put to the doctor and therefore inappropriate to raise at this late stage. I agree. Moreover, the challenge ultimately goes to jurisdiction and should have been raised in the court below and not at the conclusion of the trial in this court. 
47.	At any event, Tomasi’s wound meets the criteria under s.107 (1) and (2) ( c) being “any wound which is not severe”.
48.	In conclusion, I find that the Prosecution has proven the charges against the accused under Count 1, beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Result 
49.	Accordingly, I find the accused, Viliami Taukei’aho, guilty on both counts.

P. Tupou KC
Nuku’alofa: 20 February, 2026 				               JUDGE