Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Great Properties Ltd v Attorney General [2016] SBHC 228; HCSI-CC 107 of 2012 (15 April 2016)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number

GREAT PROPERTIES LIMITED
Claimant

V

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendant

Date of Ruling: 15 April 2016

Mr. B Etomea for the Claimant
Mr. S Hanu for the Defendant

RULING

1. The Claimant filed its claim against the Defendant on 17^th April 2012. The Claim was later amended on 25^th July 2012. The Claimant seeks: (i) damages to be assessed by the court; (2) Loss of business to be assessed by the court; (3) any other orders that the court deems fit and costs.
2. The Defendant lodged this application on 1^st June 2012. The application is to strike out the Claimant’s claim on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, further orders as the court sees fit to make and cost.
3. The Claimant’s case is as follows. The Claimant is a registered company. It owns a 2 story building, accommodating shops, residence and a garage located on Parcel No. 191-025-111 at West China Town.
4. On 18^th April 2006 the members of Parliament elected Hon. Snyder Rini as Prime Minister of Solomon Islands. A group of people who were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the election of Hon.Snyder Rini as Prime Minister caused a riot in Honiara which resulted in the burning of buildings and properties in China Town, Kukum and King George VI owned by Chinese citizens. The Claimant’s properties referred to in paragraph 3 above were also burned.
5. The Law dealing with the striking out of claims is covered by Rule 9.75 (b) of the Solomon Islands Court (Civil Procedure) Rules which states:
   • “If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings:
   • (b) No reasonable cause of action is disclosed.
   • The court may, on the application of a party or on its own initiative, order the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim”.
6. In accordance with this rule the Defendant submits that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed against the Defendant based on the following grounds:

Negligence of duty

(a) The Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) performed its duty at all material times as mandated under the Police Act.

• Basically at all times the duties of the police were discharged by those in command of the Police operation having regard to the resources at their command.
• Section 4 (2) of the Crown Proceeding Act provides:
  • “when the Crown is bound by statutory duty which is binding also upon persons other than the crown and its officers, then subject to the provisions of this Act, the crown shall, in respect of a failure to comply with that duty, be subject to all those liabilities in tort (if any) to which it would be so subject if it were a private person of full age and capacity”.

• In the case of Attorney General v. Fangs^[1] Cameron PJ, concluded in relation to the above provision that “even if the Police Act imposed statutory duties which could give rise to tortious liability, the crown could not be liable for a failure of that duty because any such duty is not binding also on persons other than the Crown”, that is, the Police Act merely binds the Police”.
• Furthermore, in Attorney General V Fangs^[2] Cameron PJ, refer to the core in Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire^[3], in which a mother of the murdered victims of Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper) brought proceedings on behalf of her daughter’s estate against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, in which the Police were criticised for not apprehending Peter Sutcliffe earlier. The House of Lords unanimously found that there was no duty by the Police.
• In referring to that House of Lords decision, Cameron PJ, states: “The Policy reason behind such a finding included that the existence of such a [common law] duty of care would negatively impact upon the Police, it would be inconsistent with and discarriage the due performance by the police of their statutory duties, and that would be in appropriate to require courts to analyse certain matters involving a variety of decisions relating to the most appropriate way to deploy available resources.”

(b) The matters relating to the operation of the Police during the April 2006 riot are matters that particularly fall within the operational ambit of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force and cannot give rise to any duty of care owed to the Claimant by the Defendant.

• In Attorney General v Fangs^[4], Cameron PJ, in response to the contention that the police did not carry out their duty at all during the riot, states that:
  • “the decision to deploy police officers or not at any particular time to any particular location during the riots was entirely within the discretion of those in command of the police operation, having regard to the resource, the perceived desirability or otherwise of doing so and no doubt a number of other consideration”.

Commission of Inquiry

• The Commission of Inquiry into the April 2006 riot was established under the commission of Inquiry Act.(cap.5)
• In effect it does not have the force of law.
• Its main purpose is to assist the Government in making informed decision, particularly the Prime Minister.

7. The Claimant’s case is that the Police failed their duty to protect the Chinese owned properties in China including the Claimant’s properties.
8. The functions of the Police are prescribed in the Police Act. The Police Act in force at the time of the riot at China Town on 18^th April 2006 was the Police Act (Cap.110). The functions of the Police in that Act include the preservation of peace and the protection of life and property.
9. China Town was entered by the rioters in the evening before night fall on 18 April 2006. Earlier on that day Hon. Snyder Rini was elected by the members of Parliament as the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands. The Police were present when RAMSI Police Officers drove the Prime Minister out from Parliament House. Members of a Crowd present outside Parliament House who disagreed with the election of the Prime Minister threw stones at the vehicle and tear gas was fired to control the stone throwing. This was followed by looting from shops at the Point Cruz area in Honiara.
10. This case to the members of the Solomon Islands Police Force. The deployment of Police Officers to the scene of arson and looting in China Town was a matter for the Police Officers in command of Police operations. This would entail consideration of the size of the crowd of the riot and the resources available to deal with the situation safely.

The court will order that this claim be struck out. The Claimant/Respondent is to pay the costs of the Defendant/Applicant if any. Order accordingly.

THE COURT
JUSTICE F. MWANESALUA

^[1] [2009]SBHC 17;HCSI-CC 2010 of 2006 (19 May 2009)
^[2] [2009] SBHC 17;HCSI-CC 2010 of 2006 (19 May 2009)
^[3] [1989] ACM53
^[4] [2009]SBHC 17; HCSI-CC 210 of 2006 (19^th May 2009)