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

R v Angilau [2025] TOSC 61; CR 197 of 2024 (14 July 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NUKU'ALOFA REGISTRY
CR 197 - 198 of 2024

BETWEEN:
REX
-Prosecution

AND
PENISONI TUIFUA ANGILAU
-Accused

JUDGEMENT

BEFORE: HON. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE BISHOP KC

Appearances: Mr J Lutui, Director of Public Prosecutions & Mr ‘A Fisi’iahi for the
Crown Prosecution
The Defendant in Person
Trial: 8 July 2025 – 14 July 2025
Date: 14 July 2025

1. THE CHARGES

1. On 30 October 2024, the Defendant pleaded not guilty to the indictment as follows. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, and in light of the evidence presented and the witnesses available, an application was made to amend the indictment, resulting in the form in which it now stands:
   1. Count 1: Supplying Illicit Drugs (520.5g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act
   2. Count 2: Supplying Illicit Drugs (534.53g of methamphetamine), contrary to section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act
   100. Count 3: Threatening a Police Officer, I will get up and beat you to death”) contrary to section 29(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
   4. Count 4: Money Laundering (in relation to an acquired Ford Ranger, L29241), contrary to section 17(1)(a) & (b)(i), (2), (3) and (4) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act.
2. Count 5 has been abandoned because no evidence was forthcoming and I disregard it in its entirety.
   
   2. BACKGROUND
3. The Defendant was unrepresented in this trial, and this was his own choice. He now complains that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for his trial nor to obtain documents from Mr Corbett, his previous counsel.
4. Due to the seriousness of the matter, the Court organised for Counsel to act, to his credit for the Defendant pro bono. The Defendant originally accepted that offer, Counsel came to Court and explained that he would go through all the papers with the Defendant over the weekend before the trial and would then be in a position to represent the Defendant
5. Following a meeting between Counsel and the Defendant, I am told this offer was declined and the Defendant chose to represent himself, that of course is his right, and I do not hold that against him in any way. But, it needs to be borne in mind when the Defendant complains that he was without assistance and was unable to obtain documents from previous Counsel.
6. His choice to represent himself which he is perfectly entitled to do, poses a challenge both on the Judge and the prosecution but here, with assistance the Defendant has been able to present his case cogently.
   
   100. THE DEFENSE
7. The Defendant’s defense is a very simple one. As to Counts 1 and 2, a strict denial. He was not the person who arrived at the home of ‘Iunita and left the drugs in Count 2 being 534.53g. It must have been someone else, and he did not sell the drugs which the prosecution say amounted to 520.5 grams in Count 1. As to Count 3 the threatening of the police officer nothing of the sort took place and the vehicle he bought was legitimately acquired in relation to Count 4.
8. I will summarize the evidence in more detail, but I do not intend to repeat each and every piece of evidence (there is no need to do this when sitting without a jury), only those I regard as necessary to produce or achieve a fair verdict.
   
   4. APPLICABLE LAW
9. I can summarise the applicable law very simply. The prosecution must prove their case in relation to each count to the criminal standard, that is to say beyond reasonable doubt.
10. They must establish that the bags concerned were in fact methamphetamine, and that they were supplied by the Defendant without lawful excuse.
11. It is not suggested that he had any lawful or indeed any excuse for possession of those drugs and therefore the question does not arise. The issue so far as the Prosecution is concerned is, was this Defendant in fact the supplier.
12. The drugs said to have been supplied in Count 1 were not physically available as Court exhibits but the money they represent was is said to be the product of an exercise by police who estimated that the money which they recovered was the result of an amount of drugs, on the basis that the going rate at the time as derived from messenger accounts between the Defendant and third parties was at 4 grams for $1,000TOP.
13. This is obviously just an estimate, but it does not seem to me that it is necessary to specify the precise amount, so the figure in Count 1, I take as an approximation based on the selling rate at the relevant time.
14. As to Count 3, it is not a drugs charge, it is quite different as it accuses the Defendant of threatening a police officer whilst he was performing his duty. A threat is an intimation of physical violence and circumstances where the object of the threat is sufficiently proximate to the person threatening to believe that the threat could be carried out.
15. As to Count 4, money laundering is established if I am satisfied to the criminal standard that a motorcar L29241 was purchased by the Defendant or came into his possession and which was valued at about $40,000TOP because he was able to pay for it through his profits from drugs trading. In other words, he benefited from the commission by him of a serious offence that is to say offence punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more which supplying illicit drugs certainly is.
16. I will later deal with the status of one of the witnesses namely Iunita who has been given immunity and I will explain why that must be treated with caution.
    
    5. THE EVIDENCE
17. On the 4 March 2024, the Defendant went to the residence of Iunita Motuliki in a white pickup or van and left numerous packs of methamphetamine which were later counted by the lady in question and her friend.
18. The methamphetamine received was in a rock–solid state. Iunita then used a hammer to break it down and relying on her expertise at packaging methamphetamine she then divided and packed the crystals using a visual estimation with no weighing tools.
19. Her property was raided later that same day and apart from a large number of men who appeared to be playing pool in a shed at the back of the property itself, methamphetamine was found, later tested and found to contain as I have already indicated 534.53grams of methamphetamine. Among those who were arrested was Iunita.
20. She was later charged with serious offences in relation to the methamphetamine but was given immunity in consideration of giving evidence in this trial. This means that she is an accomplice and although the corroboration requirement for accomplices has been abrogated here in Tonga as in England and Wales, it is only fair to approach her evidence with caution because obviously, she has a direct personal interest in assisting the Prosecution because, I infer, her immunity depends upon her giving evidence implicating the Defendant.
21. I will consider how to approach her evidence in due course and to see whether there is other corroborative evidence or at least evidence consistent with her account.
22. A number of persons were arrested from the residence and some of them gave evidence for the Defendant.
23. The next day, the police were informed that this Defendant was subject to an arrest warrant for not appearing before the court on a different matter and then at 3:00 PM on the 5 March 2024, his vehicle was seen near the old survey office by Chief Inspector Vi and he was then subsequently arrested in the car by Sargent Leveni.
24. In the front passenger seat was a large amount of money $73,010TOP in one black plastic bag and a second bag found glove box of the front passenger seat was a further black plastic bag containing $17,115. The total amount seized from the Defendant’s vehicle was $90,125TOP.
25. Not surprisingly, the Defendant was arrested and remanded into custody.
26. Those comprised Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. Count 2 being the methamphetamine bought and apprehended at the resident of Iunita on 4 March 2024 and Count 1 being the product of an estimated 520.5grams of methamphetamine which the police calculated from the total amount of cash seized in his vehicle plus the value of the vehicle multiplied by the amount of grams in each pack, then divided by the cost of one pack of methamphetamine.
27. Count 3 occurred on 14 May 2024 when a young police officer 21 years old with only four to five months experience in the Police Force was sent to the prison where the Defendant was, to accompany him to take his fingerprints and conduct some legal work.
28. The Defendant reacted in an aggressive way and said “I will get up and beat you to death.” I am quite satisfied that he intimidated and unsettled the young Police Officer, after all he was 21 years old and was still getting acquainted with police work.
29. In relation to Count 4, police were anxious to investigate the Defendant’s finances, he had a Ford Ranger worth $40,000 but where did he get it from? He did not work, he did not have any business interests and had not declared any income in the recent years according to the relevant authorities.
30. I am asked to infer that the vehicle in question valued at $40,000 had been obtained using the proceeds of illicit drug activities. The Defendant claimed it was purchased by means of a loan with the assistance of his sister, but no documents have been produced nor has his sister been called to give evidence to this.
31. I must decide this case on the evidence placed before me, and if there is a complaint in relation to his former lawyer but has not been disclosed to him, he must take this up with the lawyer concerned and, I say nothing further.
32. The Police also interrogated the phones of these three persons who had been charged on methamphetamine related offences, and the Defendant was identified in all three accounts by an icon of a monkey which he habitually used on messenger and the name of the messenger account, “Tuifua Angilau.”
33. Among the messages from and to the Defendant were requests for the supply of ice which is a colloquialism from methamphetamine. I will deal with some of these messages that I deem relevant shortly.
34. Taking all these matters together I am asked to conclude that the Defendant was the person who turned up at Iunita’s house on 4 March 2024 and brought a package containing a large amount of methamphetamine which was then packaged by Iunita then counted by both Iunita and her friend who was there because she was pregnant and had arranged for her expected child to be handed over to Iunita to be customarily adopted as is the practice here in Tonga.
35. I am also asked to infer that Iunita gave the Defendant a large sum of money she had been collecting from earlier methamphetamine transactions on 4 March 2024 when he paid a visit.
36. She told me with surprising insouciance that she had been dealing with the Defendant since about 2020 and this was part of the proceeds arising from those transactions. It started small but grew over time and that the drugs had been brought to the residence by the Defendant.
37. I am also asked to infer that the money found on 5 March 2024 in the Defendant’s vehicle was the product of dealing in methamphetamine and that the motor vehicle had been purchased from drugs transactions and further that the incident of the young policemen did in fact occur.
    
    6. THE EXHBITS
38. The following exhibits were adduced by the Prosecution through the duration of the trial in support of their case;
    1. Exhibit 1: Diary of Action: Motuliki Residence – 4 March 2025
    2. Exhibit 2: Search List
    100. Exhibit 3: Photos of items from Motuliki Residence
    4. Exhibit 4: Drug Analysis Report
    5. Exhibit 5: Diary of Action: Vehicle – 5 March 2024
    6. Exhibit 6: Photos from Angilau seized vehicle
    7. Exhibit 7: Search Warrant
    8. Exhibit 8: Correspondence from Banks
    9. Exhibit 9: Letters (4 pages) to MTED & MORC
    10. Exhibit 10: Correspondence in reply from Labour and Revenue
    11. Exhibit 11: Diary of Action – Financial means of the Defendant – 7 June 2024
    50. Exhibit 12: Messenger Messages – Tuitavake
    13. Exhibit 13: Messenger Messages – Latu
    14. Exhibit 14: Messenger Messages – Veatupu
        

7. THE WITNESSES

1. Witnesses – Prosecution

39. Sargent Tu’amelie Fifita – in charge and oversaw the operations and investigations into the Defendant and into the search of the Motuliki Residence
40. ‘Iunita Motuliki – dealt with the Defendant since 2020 in selling methamphetamine
41. Chief Inspector Vi – saw the Defendant on 5 March 2024 and wrote correspondences to MTED and MORC to confirm income source for Defendant
42. Sargent Carsten Leveni – Arrested the Defendant on 5 March 2025 and conducted the Drug Analysis on substances found in Motuliki Resident
43. Constable Tu’ipulotu – in charge of entries in the Diary of Action for Motuliki Residence
44. Constable Tafea – Threatened by the Defendant on 14 May 2024
45. Sinamoni Taufa – sold the Defendant the Ford Ranger for $40K TOP
46. Constable Latu – in charge of entries in the Diary of Action for seizing of the Defendant’s vehicle
47. Constable Folau – counted the cash seized from the Defendant’s vehicle on 5 March 2024
48. Akanesi Veilofia – acquainted with the Defendant and confirmed his messenger as the account with the monkey icon and name “Tuifua Angilau”
49. Soana Sakopo – was present at the Motuliki residence and counted packs of Illicit Drugs with Iunita
    

2. Witnesses – Defendant

50. The Defendant – was not present on 4 March 2024 at the Motuliki Residence. He says he was at a picnic and has a plantation and pig farm that is cash operated and had secured a loan with his sister to purchase the Ford Ranger.
51. Maka Vakauta – worked plantation on the Defendant’s land and gave him money $90K Top in December 2023
52. Tupou Pakofe – was present at the Motuliki Residence on 4 March 2024, saw a vehicle but could not confirm or identify if he saw the Defendant on that day
53. Jim Tupou – was in the same cell as Defendant on 14 May 2024 when Constable Tafea came to take the Defendant for fingerprints and legal work
54. Siupeli Tamale – was also present at the Motuliki Resdence on 4 March 2024, did not see a vehicle or the Defendant on that day
    
    8. DISCUSSION
55. Sargent Tu’amelie Fifita was the first to give evidence. He supervised this operation at Iunita’s residence where he produced all the exhibits for the prosecution’s case including a diary of action and a search list which set out the results of the search on the residence, mainly the black plastic container bag inside a green bag where 18 packs of methamphetamine was subsequently found and later weighed to be 534.53g.
56. The Police in their investigation wanted to find out how the Defendant could have obtained this large amount of money lawfully and they made inquiries. Exhibit 8 is the response from all the local banks which confirmed that the Defendant did not have a bank account with them. Further, in Exhibit 10, confirmed that there is no documentary evidence to support any business or trade or rather any source of a legitimate income registered under the Defendant’s name.
57. The Police therefore conclude and ask me to infer, considering the selling rate of 4 grams for $1000TOP revealed by one of the persons in contact with the Defendant on messenger together with the value of his vehicle and the amount of cash found in the vehicle itself produces the total of 520.5grams of methamphetamine on the indictment in Count 1.
58. I repeat this is just an estimate which must not be taken as a precise amount but it seems to me this is the minimum amount using the calculation produced by Police on the evidence.
59. I have also been told about the weight of the methamphetamine at Iunita’s house. Again, according to her, it seems to be therefore, a considerable amount beyond that already mentioned was dealt with during that 4 years of activity.
60. However, I proceed on the basis that the only amount I can be sure of is that on the indictment.
61. As I have previously stated the Police went on to investigate the phone records not the Defendant's, but those of other persons arrested on drug charges whose cell phones had been confiscated by the police.
62. The following are messages by and to the Defendant which are significant, and which disclose in my view adopting the criminal standard negotiations about the purchase and sale of methamphetamine.
63. Exhibit 12:

“FRI AT 2:17 PM

Lautaimi: Bro can I have a G I got only 350

Tuifua: Only a Bro

: What’s your number

Lautaimi: 8822272

Tuifua: Call me 8735858

Lautaimi: After work I will call the number

Tuifua: thumb up emoji

SAT AT 2:59 AM

Lautaimi: Did you have any

WED AT 6:23 AM

Lautaimi: Do you have a half there

Tuifua: Yes

: I will come to your home

Lautaimi: Yes thanks, call me, am at the back

Tuifua: At the back where

Lautaimi: Home

: You almost here

SUN AT 5:58 AM

Lautaimi: Will call you at the bush in the evening hours, the money is ready, I will cross to deliver the purchase and brought it to you

Tuifua: Ok bro

SUN AT 8:03 AM

Tuifua: You ready bro

SUN AT 11:42 AM

Lautaimi: The Church has just finished ready I will move.”

.

64. Exhibit 13:

“WED AT 08:55

Tuifua: How many you got

Puluno: 3 bro

Tuifua: At who

: I will reduce to 1000 for 4 grams bro

Puluno: Yes i will look into it bro because that price is good and does samu wants some work

Tuifua: Samu eats too much toilet

Puluno: Hhhh he texted last night that he got lots of customers but got no work and I told him the things I got is not that much.

Tuifua: Hhhh hit to die

Puluno: He has debt to you?”

65. There are further messages which is not necessary to repeat at this stage.
66. There was another interrogation of another person's messenger in Exhibit 14;

“MAR 3 AT 10:20 PM

Veatupu: Fua are at home for my purchase

MAR 3 AT 11:49 PM

Tuifua: How much

MAR 4 AT 12:15 AM

Veatupu: Only 50

MAR 4 AT 12:32 AM

Tuifua: Hurry

Veatupu: Yes, I am walking over

MAR 5 AT 2: 45 AM

Veatupu: Fua

MAR 5 AT 8:36 AM

Veatupu: Fua can you do my purchase

MAR 5 AT 11:09 AM

Tuifua: What do you want to purchase?

MAR 14 AT 2:09 AM

Veatupu: Fua

MAR 19 AT 6:24 PM

Veatupu: Fua can do my purchase”

67. There appears to be no reply to the messages on 14 March and on 19 March, I infer is because the Defendant by then was in custody.
68. I am quite satisfied to the criminal standard that these messages disclose that this Defendant was the source of methamphetamine and was supplying it to his customers.
69. I next heard from Iunita Motuliki who lives at Lomaiviti in which I have already summarised and referred to her evidence. She told me that she is the Defendant’s second cousin and had been involved with him with drugs dealing since about 2020 beginning with an ounce at a time and then inevitably increasing. She said the modus operandi was that the Defendant would give her ice which she would divide into smaller packets and sell.
70. On 4 March 2024, she gave him a large sum of money, at the same time, he gave her a bag containing what she said to be cannabis which does not form part of the current indictment and methamphetamine in a green bag.^[1]
71. The Defendant handed her a bag which contained methamphetamine and as I have referred to earlier, the methamphetamine came in a rock-solid form which she then broke down with a hammer and packaged using her own visual estimation and experience.
72. The sum of money she gave the Defendant was the proceeds of previous drugs dealings which amounted to $70,000.
73. She was cross examined, and it was put to her that in her earlier statement to the police she had said that the Defendant arrived in a Hilux whereas in fact it was a Ford Ranger.
74. I bear in mind that the Defendant said that he was not present on the 4 March 2024 and so it is a little difficult to understand how he was in a position to say in what vehicle this unknown visitor arrived in.
75. But, in fairness to him, he may have meant to say that he only has a Ford Ranger and that way he could not have shown up in a Toyota Hilux.
76. It was also put to her by the Defendant that in her statement she had alleged that there were 17 packets of methamphetamine not 18. I do not hold that these slight discrepancies in any way impact on the credibility of this witness bearing in mind the caution with which I must approach her evidence with. I am satisfied to the criminal standard that this witness was telling me the truth.
77. Further, an important witness for the prosecution was Soana Sakopo. She was staying at Iunita’s house quite regularly because as I indicated earlier, she was pregnant and was expecting to hand over her unborn child to ‘Iunita.
78. She told me that she counted 18 packets containing methamphetamine, she however had left the residence before the arrival of the police and therefore avoided the fate which befell her husband and others present when the police turned up on the property.
79. In cross-examination of Soana, the defendant also put to her the discrepancy between her statement of 17 packs and her evidence of 18 packs but as have already indicated, I do not think that it in any way undermines the cogency of her evidence which I found compelling.
80. The Defendant gave evidence on oath claiming that at the time of the visit on 4 March 2024, he could not have been at the residence because he was away on a picnic on a bush allotment with friends and he said a public holiday. In that respect he was incorrect it was not a public holiday.
81. He said that the money in the car was legitimately obtained. He farmed a number of tax allotments, he hired men on construction work, has a pig farm and occasionally sold clothes at the side of the road but no documents in support of these assertions have been produced.
82. The Defendant further called a number of witnesses. First was Maka Vakauta, he said that he gave the defendant about $90,000TOP as a result of trading legitimately and being the proceeds of crops exported and sold in New Zealand which he cultivated but on the Defendant's land.
83. He claimed that in lieu of rent some of the proceeds of the sale was paid to the defendant and that accounts for $90,000. Importantly, the witness said that this money was given to the Defendant close to December 2023.
84. I am asked to accept the possibility that the money in the vehicle is the product of that export which resulted in the Defendant being paid $90,000 or thereabouts in December of 2023 found in the vehicle on 4 March 2024. I reject that explanation as it seems it seems ridiculous.
85. Next, the Defendant called Tupou Pakofe who said that he saw a Ford Ranger but did not know the Defendant and could not indicate if the person was the Defendant or not as they were not acquainted at that time.
86. Siupeli Tamale who gave evidence this morning says that he was in the residence but did not see the Defendant or a vehicle arrive on 4 March 2024. I reject the evidence of both these witnesses. They were here to help a friend and a fellow drugs user/supplier or consumer but their evidence in my view was untruthful.
87. As to the Defendant’s explanation for the money in his vehicle, it was from the export of crops. This means that from that date in December 2023 until the 5 March 2024 when he was arrested, the money in two plastic bags all neatly packaged and bound by plastic bands in his vehicle had been there or at least was the product of those crops sold then. I reject that explanation.
88. Further, if the Defendant’s account is or could be correct it must follow that the person who delivered the methamphetamine on the 4 March 2024 as I find happened and was given a large sum of money was not the Defendant but an unknown person and that the witness and her companion were untruthful about this matter.
89. But the witness’s account was in no way exculpatory of her own involvement and I can see no reason why she should wrongly implicate the defendant, her second cousin and none has been suggested.
90. The Defendant claims that the monkey profile icon on the messenger account was not his but again no reason has been given why some unknown person would be using the very image that he accepts he uses, and which other witnesses claim is his.
91. No plausible explanation has been given for the Defendant’s possession of the sum of money in his vehicle apart from the one which I have just rejected, nor has he explained how he came to purchase a $40K vehicle with no evidence in support of his alleged loan which made that possible.
92. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the events and the incident giving rise to Count 3 did take place and that the Defendant did use the words complained of to the intimidation of the young police officer concerned.
93. I therefore conclude that the evidence against him is compelling, I repeat I bear in mind the status of Iunita and treat her evidence with caution and to a lesser extent that of Soana but there, it seems to be abundant evidence to support what has been said by these two witnesses which bolsters their account.
94. There is the messenger evidence which shows that the Defendant in my view was obviously dealing drugs on a considerable scale. The evidence that the Defendant was given a large sum of money by Iunita on the 4 March 2024 and the presence of a similar large sum in his vehicle also suggests some connection between those events.
95. I having closely observed all witnesses but in particular Iunita and Soana during the course of this trial to determine whether I could be sure that what they were telling me in all relevant respects was true. Of course, I bear in mind that demeanor can often be misleading and that a convincing witness may also be a lying one, but both struck me as truthful. Iunita to the extent of without prompting admitting her own involvement in what happened since 2020, although without such evidence she could not have been implicated of involvement in that time frame.

Soana, of course was never part of the Prosecution’s case and although I must treat her own involvement which makes her an accomplice with some caution, nevertheless I am quite satisfied to the criminal standard that she was telling me the truth and that she played a role in counting the packets of drugs.

1. FINAL RESULT

96. Taking all these matters together and applying holistic approach I am satisfied so that I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the case against this Defendant has been made out on;
97. Count 1: The Defendant did supply 520.5g methamphetamine to persons unknown, contrary to section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act
98. Count 2: The Defendant did supply to Iunita on 4 March 2024 534.53g of methamphetamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act
99. Count 3: Threatening a Police Officer, (“I will get up and beat you to death”) contrary to section 29(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act.
100. Count 4: Money Laundering where the Ford Ranger, L29241 was obtained using the proceeds of crime, contrary to section 17(1)(a) & (b)(i), (2), (3) and (4) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act.
     

^[1] Exhibit 3, page 1