| [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac |
On September 25, the Defence requested leave from this Court to present a motion to dismiss the charges against the Defendant. In his argument, the Defence Counsel suggested that the Defence did not "believe that the prosecution has provided any evidence proving that an act of treason has actually occurred".
In response, the Prosecution indicated that this Court had already ruled on the sufficiency of the preliminary evidence for its consideration in trial in its Statement of September 02, and further indicated that the Court Procedures Act mandated no additional consideration of sufficiency to proceed to trial. This was countered by the Defence Counsel with the assertion that the aforementioned determination "did not, in of itself, constitute a determination that sufficient evidence had been presented to allow a trial to be brought to conclusion", followed by a reiteration of the earlier request for leave to motion for the dismissal of charges. In considering the request, this Court held no doubt on the right of the Defence to issue it. However, it remained cognizant to the mandate of the Court Procedures Act that such motions, at this stage, must be of an extraordinary character. In interpreting said provision, the Court believes that it must be dependent on circumstances that would significantly alter the nature of the proceeding, or affect the ability of either party to obtain a fair proceeding. The Court does not believe that the evidence presented by the Prosecution presents such a significant change in circumstances, nor does it share the sense of urgency that the Defence has implied. It must be noted that evidence still remains to be collected, in the form of witness testimonies, which may or may not alter the circumstances of this case. If, after said collection, such a change presented itself, the Court would be willing to entertain a request for leave. Until that time, however, it is not the opinion of the Court that a leave to motion for dismissal is necessary. For the above reasons, the request for leave is denied. It is so ordered. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |