+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Government District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: High Court (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac (/thread-5455.html)
[PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Kris Kringle - 09-02-2017
Filed:
- 01 September 2017
- Roavin
- Cormac
In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Court Procedures Act, the following steps shall comprise the Pre-Trial of Roavin v. Cormac:
- A plea or guilty or not guilty must be submitted by the Defence within the seven calendar days following the publication of this document.
- Should the Defendant plea guilty, the Court will proceed to sentencing.
- Should the Defendant fail to submit a plea, the Court will appoint a representative to act as the Defence and proceed to trial.
- Should the Defendant plea not guilty, the Court will receive and consider motions for the dismissal of charges, extension of allotted times, alternation of the charges and request for recusal.
- Should the Defendant plea guilty, the Court will proceed to sentencing.
- The Court will consider and approve lists of witnesses and evidence submitted by the Prosecution and the Defence within the seven calendar days following the consideration of motions.
- The Prosecution and the Defence will agree on an acceptable time period for the gathering of witness testimony. The Court will determine a time, should they prove unable to reach an agreement.
RE: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Cormac - 09-04-2017
I plead Not Guilty. Belschaft will be representing me as my defense counsel.
[PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Kris Kringle - 09-04-2017
The Court accepts the plea of Not Guilty and acknowledges Belschaft as the counsel for the defence, affording him all the rights, privileges and responsibilities due in accordance with the Court Procedures Act.
The Court will now accept motions from the prosecution and the defence for the dismissal of the charges, the alteration of the allotted times for later stages of the process, the alteration of the charges and the recusal of the presiding judge. Motions will be subject to the following terms:
The Court will now accept motions from the prosecution and the defence for the dismissal of the charges, the alteration of the allotted times for later stages of the process, the alteration of the charges and the recusal of the presiding judge. Motions will be subject to the following terms:
- They must be clearly written
- They must include a justification of their necessity, including any evidence or laws that might be applicable
RE: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Belschaft - 09-05-2017
Your honour,
For the sake of clarity, could you please specify the allotted time period for pre-trial motions.
RE: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Roavin - 09-05-2017
Your honor,
the prosecution has no pre-trial motions to present at this time.
[PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Kris Kringle - 09-05-2017
The Court recognises the decision of the Prosecution not to submit any motions.
In response to the request by the Defence Counsel, the Court will exercise its discretion to provide a reasonable amount of time for the submission of motions. A soft limit of seven calendar days will be given, in line with the statutory limit for other stages of the trial process, for the submission of motions by both parties.
The Court reserves the right to reasonably extend or shorten this time, respectively, either at the request of the interested party or should it conclude that the time is being used by any party for stalling purposes.
The Court further advises both the Prosecution and the Defence that, under the Court Procedures Act, motions may not be ordinarily granted after the Pre-Trial.
In response to the request by the Defence Counsel, the Court will exercise its discretion to provide a reasonable amount of time for the submission of motions. A soft limit of seven calendar days will be given, in line with the statutory limit for other stages of the trial process, for the submission of motions by both parties.
The Court reserves the right to reasonably extend or shorten this time, respectively, either at the request of the interested party or should it conclude that the time is being used by any party for stalling purposes.
The Court further advises both the Prosecution and the Defence that, under the Court Procedures Act, motions may not be ordinarily granted after the Pre-Trial.
RE: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Belschaft - 09-06-2017
Your honour,
The Defence motions for the summary dismissal of charges.
Precedent, whilst non-binding on the Court, is by your own previous decisions considered indicative and to be taken into account when deciding judicial matters. For this reason we refer the Court to HCLQ1404, HCLQ1504 and HCLQ1708.
The Defence believes that these rulings, considered collectively, clearly indicate that it is possible for a member of The Coalition to cease to be a member, and in doing so exit the jurisdiction of The South Pacific. The jurisdiction of The South Pacific, and thus the criminal liability of individuals, is determined not by the physical location of an individual or their actions but the nature of their relationship with The South Pacific; for an individual to be subject to the Court and jurisdiction of The South Pacific they must be a member of The South Pacific. Whilst the Defendant had, in the past, been a member of The Coalition at the time of charges being filed this was no longer the case. On the 12th of July 2017, more than a month prior to the filing of charges, the Defendant resigned their status as a Legislator and renounced all affiliation and membership of The Coalition. Further public statements to this effect have been made in numerous locations, and as such the Defence believes that no reasonable individual could consider the Defendant a member of the Coalition at the time of filing. On this basis, the Defence does not believe that this Court possess jurisdiction and that the charges must be summarily dismissed.
RE: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Roavin - 09-06-2017
Your honor,
the Prosecution wishes to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
[PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Kris Kringle - 09-06-2017
The Court acknowledges the motion for dismissal submitted by the Defence, and will hear the opposing argument from the Prosecution.
RE: [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac - Roavin - 09-08-2017
Your honor,
the Defense argues that the Defendant can no longer be considered a member (the Membership Premise), and therefore falls outside of the jurisdiction of this body (the Jurisdiction Premise). The Prosecution believes that neither premise survives scrutiny with respect to law and precedent.
In the ruling for HCLQ1708, Justice Kringalia laid out criteria for membership as "a combination of physical presence in either the region or the forum and a reasonable display of good faith". The physical presence was given both through the nation Cormactopia Prime, which can be confirmed via NationStates regional dumps in the months of February to June, as well as the forum account with which the Defendant submitted their plea in this very thread. Good faith at the time was also present; in fact the Defendant admirably served as Chair of Assembly for a brief while. Therefore, it is clear that the Defendant had attained membership status. Moving forward, even though the Defendant renounced all affiliation, this does not revoke the membership status previously attained. First, if this were the case, that would contradict the ruling in HCLQ1708 that states "membership cannot be forfeited once gained". Second, if we assume the Defense's Jurisdiction Premise to be valid, then members could trivially escape responsibility and prosecution for criminal acts by forfeiting their membership. A trial such as The Coalition v. Milograd in 2013 could not take place, which given the historical infractions committed by Milograd in their 2013 coup d’etat attempt is clearly absurd. Therefore, the court must consider the Membership premise invalid.
Prior to filing charges, the Prosecution considered the matter of jurisdiction and concluded that even if a premise such as the Defense's predictable Membership premise were valid, jurisdiction would apply regardless. The laws of the Coalition do not provide a definition for the jurisdiction of the High Court of the South Pacific, therefore we must determine applicability of its jurisdiction to a particular case based on precedent, the spirit of the law, and authoritative definitions of the word itself. The relevant Oxford Dictionary definition defines jurisdiction to be the "territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends". Given that the High Court is the sole arbiter of criminal matters within the Coalition, the spirit of the law thus shows that jurisdiction applies when the affected area of influence of a crime is (at least in part) operated by the Coalition. Note that this interpretation does not differentiate between classes or types of individuals committing the crime, and this is upheld both by precedent in HCLQ1404 and by the Court Procedures Act which deliberately defines the Accused as “individuals” rather than members, citizens, residents, or other such terms that could imply class or type of any sort. In other words, a crime committed on territory of the Coalition falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court no matter who committed the crime, and therefore the Jurisdiction premise is invalid.
An argument is considered sound if and only if all its premises are valid. We have shown that both premises are invalid, even if the respective other premise is assumed to be valid, and therefore, the argument for a motion to dismiss is unsound. We urge the court to reject the motion.