More Top Stories

Rugby league

Moana target 2025 World Cup

11 November 2022


Moment of truth at COP27

12 November 2022


We’re halfway there!

16 November 2022


From the river to the ocean

18 November 2022

LETTERS: Registering ‘struck off’ companies

Saturday 12 February 2022 | Written by Supplied | Published in Letters to the Editor, Opinion


LETTERS: Registering ‘struck off’ companies

Dear Editor, reading the reply from Mr. Tamatoa Jonassen to my previous letter, which unfortunately was published without my name, I feel compelled to clarify a few points (‘Ample time’ to re-register companies, Cook Islands News February 10).

  1. Yes, I have seen in the newspaper the notice by the Ministry of Justice regarding the re-registration due by the end of December 2020. I went on the website and completed the form that was there. When I found that my company was struck off in January, I went to the Ministry where I was told the reason was an incomplete re-registration not following the instructions on how to do it properly published on the Ministry Facebook Blog (page).
  2. I then asked a lawyer to apply for re-registration to the criminal register, following companies’ office staff indications. After a while it became evident that re-registration was impossible without amending the act.
  3. The amendment was passed in October 2021; I asked again a lawyer to follow up with the re-registration and after 3 months the amended act became a law; still...nothing!

From your reply I can see the involvement of Asian Development Bank and another entity in fixing the software problem that apparently is not allowing for re-registration, and your time requirement to do so, is one week.

I will wait for such a time patiently and with the hope you will maintain the weeks’ notice that you wrote in the newspaper.

N.H. Paolo Ferruccio Cattania

Cannabis for medicinal use

Dear Editor,

In Georgia, USA, cannabis for medicinal use is allowed and in many cities of Georgia recreational use was decriminalised

But in 2018, before Georgia got rid of their archaic and oppressive laws on cannabis, there was a trial for a man cultivating marijuana, a felony that carries a mandatory 1 year in prison.

The defendant grew marijuana for personal use to treat chronic headaches, he even admitted he was guilty.

The jury had a decision to make, find the defendant guilty of growing cannabis and possessing drug related objects, or deem him innocent.

After three days of trial, the jury spent 2 hours and ultimately found him not guilty on all counts. He was acquitted through a process known as Jury Nullification. 

Most people – and even lawyers – are surprised to learn that juries are not required to follow the law.

Even if the judge wanted to give this man a pass, his hands would be tied. Only the jury’s leniency and right to nullify allowed the defendant to avoid a serious conviction

Jury nullification isn’t unheard of, but seemed to symbolically challenge stringent cannabis policies.

When a jury’s conscience takes over and tells them that someone does not deserve criminal punishment for his or her actions, regarding the law, the jury can choose to acquit.

Jurors exercised their right to judge not simply based on the letter of the law but also their conscience and understanding of the context of the case.

A jury’s knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the results dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Also, there is the phenomenon of a hung jury where an insufficient number of jurors voting one way or another to deliver either a guilty or not guilty verdict of a defendant brought up on cannabis charges is resulting in mistrials. The defendant is not convicted and the state would find it hard to convict in another trial given the favourable polling numbers for marijuana.


Steve Boggs

Cheshire Cat grins

The front page picture (yesterday) of the Seabed Minerals Authority with the Cheshire Cat grins reminds this writer of the front page picture of Tim Tepaki and his grinning team of about the same size when announcing the re-start of the Sheraton Hotel.

The question has been asked before, and should be asked again. If this latest think-big scheme goes pear-shaped, and like the Sheraton and Toa-Gate costs this country’s taxpayers millions, who in yesterday’s picture will be going into pocket to cover the loss?

(Name and address supplied)