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

R v Katoa [2025] TOSC 94; CR 68 of 2024 (28 November 2025)

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

CR 68 of 2024

BETWEEN:
REX
- Prosecution

AND:
MOSESE KATOA
- Accused

SENTENCE AND SENTENCING REMARKS

BEFORE:
HON. JUSTICE PAUL GARLICK KC

Appearances:
Mr. G Aleamotu’a for the Prosecution
The Defendant in Person
Dates of Trial:
27 August – 19 September 2025

Date:
28 November 2025

History of proceedings

1. On 19 September 2025, the Defendant, who is 58 years of age and who has no previous convictions, was found guilty by a jury on the following offences;

Count 1: Importation of Prohibited Goods, contrary to section 95(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act (‘Act’).

Count 2: Importation of Prohibited Goods, contrary to section 95(1) of the Act.

Count 3: Failure to make a Declaration, contrary to section 97 of the Act.

Count 4: Bribery of a Government Servant, contrary to section 51 of the Criminal Offences Act.

The offending conduct

2. On 30 August 2023, the vessel “Mountain Cameron” arrived in Tonga, carrying a crate containing the prohibited goods, which are the subject of this case. On 11 September, the defendant went to the offices of SF Oceania to secure the release of the crate. He had engaged a customs broker to prepare all the necessary customs declarations, including a declaration signed by the defendant, confirming that he knew what the crate contained. The part of the declaration containing statements in relation to prohibited goods was completed by the defendant. He declared that the crate contained ammunition, but the column relating to firearms was left blank. The defendant approached a customs officer who was operating a scanner, and he told her that he was there to clear the consignment, which contained ammunition. He informed her that the goods were going to be taken to Ha’apai, and he handed her the bill of lading for the consignment. He suggested to the customs officer that the crate need not be scanned, but the customs officer proceeded to scan the crate. From the images on the scanner, the customs officer saw that the crate contained ammunition and firearms. The defendant told the customs officer that the crate contained about 500 bullets. When he was asked if the crate contained any firearms, the defendant replied “No”. That was a blatant lie.
   
3. The defendant then attempted to bribe the customs officer, handing her $50.00, saying that she could use it for lunch. The customs officer returned the money to the defendant immediately. That was a blatant attempt to bribe the customs officer, which was made more serious by reason of the fact that the defendant was, himself, a serving customs officer. The bribery offence was made even more serious by the conduct of the defendant at the trial, when he accused the customs officer of lying and suggested that she was a corrupt officer who had accepted bribes in the past. That was a deceitful, dishonourable and disgraceful suggestion by the defendant.
   
4. The crate was then physically inspected by another customs officer, and the defendant attempted to persuade that officer not to examine the contents of the crate closely. The crate was removed to another area, and a detailed inspection was carried out. The defendant was again asked to specify what was in the crate, and he told the customs officer that there was some ammunition and just one firearm. Later, he told the customs officer that there were 3 firearms in the crate. Again, the defendant was lying, as when the crate was searched, it was found to contain 9 rifles, 2 shotguns, 1 pistol and 27 cases of ammunition. Later, when asked by a police officer if he had a licence for the importation of the firearms and ammunition, the defendant said that the firearms and ammunition did not belong to him, but to another person called “Asaeli”.
   

Mitigating & aggravating features

5. In its written submissions in relation to the sentences, the Crown submits that the aggravating and mitigating features in this case are as follows.
   

Aggravating features

(1) The Defendant’s offending in counts 1 to 3 is most serious and is reflected by the maximum penalty of $100,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.
(2) The Defendant is a Senior Customs Officer with years of experience, and he has violated his Employer’s trust and confidence by committing these offences.
(3) The Defendant’s offence was intentional. This is supported by the fact that he failed to declare on the Declaration Form the prohibited goods inside his consignment. Also, he did not tell Customs Officer Pauline that there were firearms inside his consignment, but just ammunition.
(4) The Defendant used his position as a Senior Customs Officer to manipulate the Customs process for releasing an imported consignment. Such an act shows that he intended to deceive the clearance process. This is supported by the fact that he instructed Sione Taiala and ‘Akanesi Mafi to examine his consignment without the presence of a Customs Officer. The Defendant undermined Sione Taiala’s work by telling him that there were no prohibited items inside and to stop his examination.
(5) The Defendant’s offending is further aggravated by offering a bribe to Customs Officer Pauline Havealeta.
(6) The prohibited goods imported significantly surpass the lawful amount of firearms and ammunition that one person is legally allowed to import into Tonga. Therefore, it is a scourge and warrants deterrence and denunciation.
(7) The Defendant’s offending is aggravated by making serious, untruthful allegations against Customs Officer Viliami Manumu’a, which portrays an image that Customs Officers are dishonest and deceptive. These allegations displace the Public’s trust and confidence in Custom Officers.

Mitigating features

(1) The Defendant’s good character and record.
(2) The Defendant’s age, 58 years.

Relevant sentencing provisions

6. Under section 95(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, the maximum penalty for the importation of prohibited goods is a fine not exceeding $100,000, imprisonment for any period not exceeding 10 years, or both.
   
7. Under section 97 of the Customs and Excise Management Act, the maximum penalty for failure to make a declaration is a fine not exceeding $100,000, or imprisonment for any period not exceeding 10 years, or both.
   
8. Under section 51 of the Criminal Offences Act, the maximum penalty for bribery of a government servant is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 years.
   

Sentencing comparables

9. In section V of its written submissions, the Crown has set out several cases which are suggested to be comparable to the instant case. I have considered those cases carefully. Of course, no case is truly comparable, and it is for the court to determine the proportionate and just sentence in each case, having regard to the particular facts of the case that it is dealing with.
   
10. I have found the following cases to be of assistance in determining the appropriate sentences in this case:
    1. R v Paula Naitoko, CR 49 of 2020,
    2. R v Henry Liutai, CR 13 of 2022

The pre-sentence report

11. I have read and considered the pre-sentence report in this case. The writer of the report states that, despite the verdicts of the jury, the defendant still maintains that he did not have any knowledge of the prohibited goods. I can not accept that the defendant’s remorse for his offending is genuine; rather, he simply regrets having been caught and convicted of these serious offences.
    

The appropriate sentences in this case

12. Having considered the facts of the instant case carefully, together with the written submissions made by the Crown, and the submissions made to me orally today by the defendant, I find that the following sentences are the appropriate, proportionate and just sentences in this case. The offending conduct in this case is so serious, and is aggravated by the fact that the defendant was a serving customs officer, who attempted to bribe one of his fellow officers, that a substantial sentence of imprisonment is necessary. I have had regard to the principle of the totality of the sentences that I shall impose upon the defendant. In my judgment, the appropriate course is to pass a substantial sentence on count 2, which I regard as the head or lead offence. In determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence on count 2, I have taken into account the conduct of the defendant in attempting to bribe another customs officer. Consequently, I shall impose a short concurrent sentence upon the defendant in relation to the offence in count 4. As the offending conduct in all the counts occurred on the same occasion, I shall order that all the sentences that I impose shall run concurrently with each other.
    
13. Accordingly, the starting points for my sentences are as follows:
    1. On count 2, the starting point is 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. However, that starting point must be increased to a sentence of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, to reflect the serious aggravating feature of attempting to bribe a customs officer.
    2. On count 1, the starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment.
    100. On count 3, the starting point is 1 year’s imprisonment.
    4. On count 4, the starting point is 1 year’s imprisonment.

Those sentences will be served concurrently with each other, making a total starting point of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

14. The defendant contested the charges and made serious allegations against a customs officer during the trial. In my judgment, there is very little mitigation available to the defendant. However, he is a man with no previous convictions. Therefore, I shall reduce the total sentence to one of 4 years’ imprisonment.
    

Suspension of part of the sentence

15. I accept that in this case there is a real possibility that the defendant may rehabilitate himself during his sentence. Therefore, according to the principles set out in the case of R v Mo’unga [1988] Tonga LR 154, I shall suspend the final 2 years’ imprisonment for a period of 2 years, on the following conditions:
    1. The defendant shall not commit any offence punishable with imprisonment during the period of suspension (2 years).
    2. The defendant shall be placed on probation during the period of suspension (2 years).
    100. The defendant shall report to the Probation Service within 48 hours of his release from prison.
         

Final sentences

16. The sentences imposed upon the defendant are as follows:
    1. Count 2, 4 years’ imprisonment.
    2. Count 1, 3 years’ imprisonment.
    100. Count 3, 1 year’s imprisonment.
    4. Count 4, 1 year’s imprisonment

All the sentences shall run concurrently with each other, making a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment. The final 2 years of the sentence shall be suspended for a period of 2 years, on the conditions set out above.

Ancillary orders

17. Under section 108 of the Customs and Excise Management Act, the firearms and ammunition which were seized in this case shall be forfeited to the Crown.
    

This is the sentence of the court

NUKU’ALOFA

HON. JUSTICE PAUL GARLICK KC
JUDGE

28 November 2025