(12-26-2018, 09:27 PM)Beepee Wrote: In terms of the current draft, I would ask if a further restriction on the grounds of appeal as follows could be added:

4. Judicial Review

(1) Individuals, regions or organizations subject to a proscription may only challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostilitproscription in the High Court on the grounds that the proscription fails to accord with Section 3 subsection 2 of the Act.
 
If satisfied that special circumstances warrant it to do so, the High Court may grant an individual special leave to appeal the proscription of a region or organization on the grounds that the proscription fails to accord with Section 3 subsection 2 of the Act.

(2) Individuals subject to a proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of their membership in that region or organization in the High Court. 

(3) For the purposes above, the individual or an individual representing the region or organization must be granted adequate permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.  

I feel that this amendment would allow is to maintain and protect our borders whilst at the same time providing greater certainty for the Court system.

(12-26-2018, 10:17 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I think the Court's power of review is an important check against arbitrary and political usage of the Proscription Act, and I would warn against weakening it.

I'm inclined to agree with Bel here. I'm all for the High Court to have an all-encompassing mandate. Perhaps, our recent controversies surrounding the proscriptions was not so much the appeals themselves but the legal criteria used to establish a valid proscription?