An unusual theft case involving a student accused of taking items ranging from a jar of coffee and a bottle of  detergent to valuable household goods, has resulted in a landmark Court of Appeal ruling that modernizes the definition of “dishonesty” in Tongan law, even though the original acquittal was ultimately upheld.

The case, Attorney General v Tevita Fa’uhiva, centred on the respondent, a student and former housemate of the complainant, who was charged with a single count of theft. The list of stolen particulars was highly unusual, featuring small domestic items like a jar of coffee and the aforementioned bottle of detergent, alongside valuable assets, including fine mats, furniture, and clothing worth $1000. The respondent had pawned several of the high-value items for cash.

It is understood by Tonga Independent that, although it wasn’t raised in the trial, Fa’uhiva was apprehended by authorities and kept in custody without bail for over six months, which seems quite excessive and unnecessary for the kind of petty crime involved.

At the initial trial, the Lord Chief Justice acquitted the respondent, finding the prosecution had not proven intent to dishonestly deprive the complainant. Critically, the trial judge relied on an outdated legal test from 1938, which focused solely on the respondent’s subjective state of mind—essentially asking if the defendant “honestly believed” they had a right to the items, regardless of whether that belief was realistic or rational.