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

R v Matangi [2025] TOSC 4; CR-VAV 2 of 2024 (22 January 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY
CR-VAV 2 of 2024

REX

-v-

TEVITA MATANGI

SENTENCING REMARKS

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE TUPOU KC
Appearances: Mrs. ‘E. Lui and Mr ‘A. Fisi’iahi for Prosecution
Ms. L. Fonua for the Defendant
Date: 22 January, 2025.

The charges

1. On 30 September, 2024, the Defendant, Tevita Matangi (“Matangi”) was found guilty of one count of causing grievous bodily harm to Mateaki Hafoka (“Mateaki”), contrary to section 106(1) and (2)(a) of the Criminal Offences Act as well as one count of causing grievous bodily harm to Sikuvea Fifita (“Sikuvea”) contrary to section 106(1) and (2)(c) of the said Act.

The Offending

2. On the evening of 20 October 2023, Sikuvea was drinking at his home with a friend Sione. They left for the “Pua” bar at Neiafu around 7pm. At around 1am that night Sikuvea found Sione in a van full of people leaving for Talau to one Lamipuli’s residence. Also inside the van were Mateaki and Matangi. Sikuvea was invited to join them and he did.
3. At Lamipuli’s residence the drinking continued. They sat outside of the house where there was light. The first altercation was between Sione and Matangi. Mateaki broke them up. In the second alteration, Matangi attacked Sikuvea and Sikuvea responded. Again, Mateaki broke up that fight.
4. Sikuvea and Mateaki returned to where they were drinking. Sikuvea at this stage, had his back to the house and Mateaki was facing him towards the house. Matangi had gone inside Lamipuli’s house and obtained a machete. As they were talking, Sikuvea heard Mateaki mention the word “helepelu”. Sikuvea’s immediate reaction was to run for the fence and hide.
5. Shortly after, Sikuvea saw Matangi walk towards him holding the machete in his hands above his head. When he drew close, Sikuvea jumped up and tried to disarm Matangi of the machete. They struggled and his arm was struck by the machete before he could reach Matangi’s hands.
6. Meanwhile, Mateaki upon see the two wrestling, he joined in an attempt to break them up. Sometime in that struggle, unknown to Sikuvea, Mateaki was also struck by the machete. Mateaki left for the road at that stage. When Sikuvea finally disarmed Matangi and the machete fell to the ground, Sikuvea realised he was injured and ran to the main road. There he collapsed.
7. He became conscious at the Neiafu hospital. He was eventually evacuated to Nuku’alofa where he was given further treatment. His injuries were:
   1. a 5cm deep and 12-15 cm long wound to the right forearm from the lateral to medial at the proximal half of his forearm anterior aspect;
   2. 6-7 muscles were severed including a few arteries and veins; and
   100. blood loss was estimated at 1 litre.
8. The residual impact of the injuries caused by the machete attack left Sikuvea with a weakened right arm where he is unable to lift anything heavy or open his hand, in particular, his middle to the pinkie finger permanently.
9. As for Mateaki’s involvement and as mentioned, he saw Matangi and Sikuvea wrestle outside of the fence of Lamipuli’s house and threw himself between them. It was then, that he felt something strike his right arm. But because he could not separate them, he threw himself between them again. It was at this time that he saw his arm hanging off him and felt his face and shirt wet. This was from his own blood. He moved back to the light and realised he was severely injured.
10. He was taken together with Sikuvea to the hospital that morning. Dr Tatila’s heroic efforts in stabilising and stopping the bleeding from his seriously injured arm saved his life. He too, was evacuated to Nuku’alofa for treatment.
11. Clearly, Mateaki’s injuries were more severe and had he not been treated within the hour it would have been fatal for him. His injuries were:
    1. a slashed wound to the anterior aspect of the right arm;
    2. the length of wound was the full width of the arm and as deep as close to the humerous bone;
    100. there was no sensation at the wrist and no movement in arm;
    100. a cut to the bicep muscle;
    4. a cut to the big artery and brachialis muscle;
    5. blood loss of about 2 litres or more;
12. Extreme steps had to be taken by the doctor and nurses at the hospital to save Mateaki. They successfully stopped the bleeding at 4am that morning. A total of 3- 5 bags of blood were transfused into him to stabilise him for the evacuation to Nuku’alofa.
    
13. The residual impact of the injuries caused by the machete attack left Mateaki with a total loss of the use of his right arm. This was visible in court while he gave evidence. He is a bricklayer by trade and is no longer able to continue as a result of this unfortunate incident.
    

Crown’s Submissions

14. The Defendant has one recent previous conviction where on 27 February, 2024 he was fined $500 in the Magistrates Court for domestic violence.
15. The Crown considered the aggravating factors against the Defendant to be:
    1. the seriousness of the offence;
    2. the use of a dangerous weapon, i.e., machete;
    100. severe injury sustained by multiple victims;
    4. his previous conviction;
    5. lack of remorse by claiming his innocence
    6. lack of cooperation with the Police.
16. The Crown submitted there were no mitigating features in Matangi’s favour.
17. The Crown referred to comparable sentences that involved the use of a machete to cause grievous bodily harm to victims. The starting points ranged between 6 ½ to 7 ½ years imprisonment.
18. The higher starting point was imposed in a case where the offending involved the intended use of the machete towards the head. In the cause of the victim protecting his head his hand was cut off.
19. The Court’s position on the use of dangerous weapons such as a machete as an instrument of violence is that it must be denounced^[1]. The court has also observed that a machete is an inherently dangerous weapon, especially in the hands of a drunken offender^[2] and that such cases warrant a starting point of 6 ½ years’ imprisonment^[3].
20. Here, the Crown proposed a starting point of 7 years for each count with 6 months from Count 2 to be added from Count 1 to Count 2 and to be served cumulatively, resulting in a final sentence of 7 ½ years imprisonment.
21. It was acknowledged that Matangi did not meet any of the guidelines or principles set out in Mo'unga v R [1998] Tonga LR 154 for suspension. However, the Crown submitted that the Defendant is likely to use any period of suspension for rehabilitation as well as an opportunity to integrate back into society after a lengthy prison sentence.
22. As a result, it was suggested that the last 3 years of the final sentence be suspended for a period of 3 years on the following conditions:
    1. Not to commit any offence punishable by imprisonment;
    2. Be placed on probation; and
    100. complete a life skill and alcohol abuse course as directed by the probation officer.
23. A victim Impact report would have been helpful but none was filed.

Pre-Sentencing Report

24. Matangi is 32 years old and is the youngest of 9 siblings. It is reported that their father died when the Defendant was still young. His mother remarried. According to the report the father left for Australia and his parents eventually separated. Matangi also referred to having worked with his father at some point. I assume he is referring to his step-father.
25. Interestingly, Matangi’s sister, who lives in Vava’u told the Probation officer that she took him in and has raised him together with her older brother. Later, in the report the town officer of Neiafu observed that Matangi was in Vava’u as part of a construction team for the Mormon Church.
26. He attended primary school in Tongatapu. He went to Tupou College and then to Liahona High School for forms 4-6 after which he dropped out of school completely. He later married Lika Vai of Ma’ufanga but they have since separated. They had no children.
27. At the time of the interview he was unemployed and blames his absences to attend court for this case.
28. Matangi is a member of the Mormon church at Fasi, Tongatapu. While in Vava’u he attends the Salvation Army in Neiafu. Mr. Prescott of the Salvation Army accepts that he sometimes attends their church but he is not a member. He was invited by one of the church members and he was still participating in the life skills course as a condition of sentence for his previous conviction.
29. The town officer of Neiafu, was not familiar with Matangi and stated he was not a resident of Kameli.
30. As for Matangi, he admitted getting the machete, he said for the purposes of frightening his victims and for his own protection. He looked for Sikuvea but he was hiding. Sikuvea punched him in the face and they argued over the knife and he knocked him off.
31. Allegedly at that stage Mateaki came to punch Sikuvea and they chased each other. At the time Sikuvea had the machete and was chasing Mateaki towards Peni Fifita’s house. He was unaware of Sikuvea and Mateaki’s injuries.
32. He admitted confessing to Police Officer ‘Atoa but said it was because he was unhappy in prison.
33. The Probation Officer rated Matangi at a level of “high risk” in terms of re-offending on the basis of his previous conviction and lack of remorse. Despite that, she recommends a suspended sentence.

Defendant’s submissions

34. No Sentencing Submissions from the Defendant and his Counsel.

Considerations

35. The maximum penalty for grievous bodily harm is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.
36. In this instant, Matangi was the clear instigator of all the altercations that occurred at Lamipuli’s residence on the night in question. After fighting Sikuvea, he obtained the machete and as he told the Probation officer, looked for and found him hiding near the fence.
37. Matangi’s version of events is inconsistent with the evidence of the witnesses that were called including Mateaki’s evidence. Firstly, the machete was found by the police near the fence where he and Sikuvea were fighting – not at Peni Fifita’s house. Secondly, Mateaki and Sikuvea did not recall chasing each other with Sikuvea in possession of the machete. Although Mateaki tried to pin Sikuvea to being in possession of the machete after they had both sustained injuries. Thirdly, Mateaki’s reason for going Peni Fifita’s house was because he knew he had vehicles that could take them to the hospital. It was not because he was chased by Sikuvea. For those reasons, I do not believe Matangi’s version of events.
38. Returning to the seriousness of the offending, I consider the injuries inflicted on Mateaki and Sikuvea as extremely serious as they have both suffered permanent impairment albeit to varying degrees.
39. Sikuvea’s injuries, though serious, in losing the use of 3 fingers and unable to lift heavy things with his injured right arm, Mateaki on the other hand has totally lost use of his right arm and therefore his means of earning a living as a brick layer. Although Mateaki’s was not slashed off as in Tupou, the fact that it is of no use to him means the impact is the same. I therefore consider Count 2 as the headcount.
40. Having regard to the maximum statutory penalty, the seriousness of the offending, the use of a machete, a dangerous weapon, inflicting serious and permanent impairment to both Sikuvea and Mateaki, the comparable sentences and principles referred to above, the sentencing objectives of punishment, denunciation, deterrence and protection of the community, I set the following starting points:
    1. Count 1 – 6 ½ years imprisonment;
    2. Count 2 – 7 ½ years imprisonment.
41. As Matangi’s conviction at the Magistrates Court was in February of 2024, at the time of the instant offending, Matangi had lived a crime free life for 31 years and had no previous convictions. In my view, he deserves some credit for that and I reduce the starting points by 12 months resulting in a final sentence as below:
    1. Count 1 – 5 ½ years imprisonment;
    2. Count 2 – 6 ½ years imprisonment.
42. I agree with the Crown’s submissions that a partially cumulative sentence is appropriate under these circumstances and I add a period of 12 months from count 1 to be served cumulatively to count 2, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 7 ½ years of imprisonment.
43. Against the considerations in Mo'unga v R [1998] Tonga LR 154 at 157, Matangi is not young, lacks remorse and has continued to concoct a false narrative about the offending after having been found guilty, the Probation report mention that he was also injured but Matangi did not explain to her why he was injured. His being charged and convicted for violence after this offending, in my view, cloud his capacity to utilise a suspended sentence toward rehabilitation.
44. However, the Crown accepted and submitted that he is likely to use any period of suspension for rehabilitation and pressed the need and significance to give him time to integrate him back to society after a lengthy prison term. I am prepared to accede to those submissions and adopt the Crowns position to suspend 3 years of the final sentence for a period of 3 years on conditions.

Result

45. The Defendant, Tevita ‘Osaiasi Pepa Veikune Unaloto Ki Pulotu Matangi is convicted of causing serious bodily harm and is sentenced to 7 ½ years’ imprisonment.
46. The final 3 years of his sentence shall be suspended for a period of 3 years from his release from prison on condition that during the said suspension period, he is to:

a) not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment;

2. report to the probation office within 48 hours of his release from prison and thereafter as required by his probation officer;

100. complete a course on alcohol, drug awareness and life skills as directed by his probation officer.

47. Failure to comply with the said conditions may result in the suspension being rescinded, in which case, the Defendant will be required to complete the balance of his prison term.
    
48. Subject to compliance with the above conditions and any remissions available under the Prisons Act, the Defendant will be required to serve 4 years and 6 months in prison.
    

P. Tupou KC
Judge of the Supreme Court
NEIAFU: 22 January, 2025

^[1] Rex v Mafi ,CR 32 of 2013
^[2] Tupou v Rex, AC 16 of 2018
^[3] Kali Malupo v Attorney General AC26/2023