Regina v Solomon Islands National Provident Fund [2001] SBHC 174; HCSI-CRC 92 of 2000 (15 November 2001)

CRC No 92, 20000, HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No 92 of 2000

REGINA

-v-

SOLOMON ISLANDS NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND & OTHERS

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer ACJ)
Criminal Case No. 92 of 2000

Hearing: 14th November 2001
Ruling: 15th November 2001

Motis Pacific Lawyers for the Applicant/2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent/Crown
R. V. Hanson QC and J. Sullivan for the 1st Defendant

PALMER ACJ: The Applicant/2nd Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”) takes objection pursuant to Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the Information filed in respect of Count 3, on the grounds that under Subsection 10(1) of the Insurance Act (Cap. 82) an unincorporated unregistered body, such as the Applicant at time (5th June 1997) it is alleged to have committed an offence is exempted from commencing, transacting or carrying on any reinsurance business in Solomon Islands or overseas. Accordingly, it could not have been capable of committing any offence under Subsection 10(2).

It is not disputed that on 5th June 1997 the Applicant was yet to be incorporated, though it purported to act as an incorporated body duly registered under the Companies Act (Cap. 175). It was only incorporated later (26th June 1997) and registered under the Insurance Act on 7th July 1997.

Subsection 10(1) does give the impression that an unincorporated and unregistered body may transact reinsurance business without falling foul of the Act. Unfortunately, Subsection 10(2) that creates the offences does not confine the range of offences capable of being committed only to registered body corporate. It uses a more general word “Any person” to describe the scope of possible offenders, which might include an unincorporated body, like the Applicant, and the word “insurance business” without qualification. That implies the meaning intended for “insurance business” is the definition provided under Section 2 of the Insurance Act. The effect is that the Information described in Count 3 is capable of being caught within Subsection 10(2) of the Insurance Act. The objection raised accordingly should be over-ruled and I so order.

ALBERT R. PALMER
THE COURT