Newsroom

July 25, 2024

The recent sentencing of the two teenagers who attacked rugby union great Toutai Kefu and his family has rightly sparked public outrage. The horrific nature of the crime – a brutal home invasion resulting in severe injuries to Mr. Kefu, his wife, and their two adult children – warranted a severe punishment. Yet, the teenagers received sentences of less than ten years, with the possibility of early release. This has led to Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath announcing that the sentence will be appealed, a move that, while seemingly justified, raises significant questions about the consistency and motivations behind the Attorney-General's actions.

Firstly, during the original sentence, both the prosecution and defence initially agreed that a sentence exceeding ten years would be excessive, only for the prosecution to now support an appeal. Are they appealing solely for the purpose of having a conviction recorded, or is there a broader concern about the adequacy of the sentence? This sudden shift is baffling.

Which brings me to question the timing of the appeal. With an election looming in three months, the Attorney-General's swift decision to appeal this particular sentence appears suspiciously convenient. It is worth questioning why there was such little hesitation to appeal a sentence that even the prosecution did not initially advocate for. Is this a genuine pursuit of justice, or a calculated move for political gain? There have been numerous instances of manifestly inadequate sentences where the public have expressed dissatisfaction, yet those calls often went through to the keeper.

The Kefus’ ordeal was truly horrific, and they deserve justice. However, justice should not be wielded as a tool for political advantage. If the Attorney-General is genuinely dissatisfied with the penalties being handed down under the Youth Justice Act she could easily have those laws amended. A bill seeking to legislate adult time for adult crimes would be supported by the Opposition and the KAP and could be swiftly enacted. However, this way, the Attorney-General gets to pretend like she’s tough on crime but is simply handballing the appeal to the judiciary to rule on, knowing full well they are limited by weak statute and years of inadequate precedents.