What roles do the letter and the spirit of the law have in judicial interpretation, and with respect to each other?
They both mean a substantial amount to how the Court should interpret a law. The spirit of the law can be convoluted, with so many different Legislators changing bits and pieces of the original bill. The letter of the law, in my opinion, is what the Court should rule based upon, as that is the literal word of the law. Laws should be written in such a way to convey the actual intent.
To what extent should the customary understanding and application of a law inform its interpretation by a judge?
In my opinion, the interpretation of a law should be one of the common sense, literal translation.
To what extent should prior rulings bind or guide the decision of a judge? What is the importance of judicial precedent in informing cases?
Legal precedent is an important and great tool for the court to look back on and into the minds of past Courts. But at the same time, current and future Courts should not be held to past rulings. Laws change, and with that comes changes on how laws can be interpreted.
Under what circumstances would custom, judicial precedent and other sources of interpretation not be useful as a means of informing a judge?
A circumstance that customary, judicial precedent, and other sources of interpretation of the law would not be useful is when that information is not relevant, or does not completely pertain to the case at hand, or if said information is construed in a way that bastardizes the prior rulings or interpretations of the law.
What is the importance of amicus curiae briefs, testimonies and questioning in the consideration of cases?
Amicus briefs can be helpful to the court, as they can provide additional information that might not be of use to or known by either party involved in the case. This is important as it can give the court pertinent information that relates to the case.

Testimonies and judicial questions are the meat and potatoes of the case, as they provide the bulk of the relevant information and lay out the two sides of the story. Specific questions asked by the court can and usually do bring out the truth in any case.
What issues should be considered when deciding the justiciability of a case or when finding probable cause of a crime?
Justiciability: Does the question make sense: technically? legally? Does the question have legal merit?

Probable Cause: Has the accuser provided preliminary evidence in line with the law the accused has been accused of? Is there enough preliminary evidence to warrant a trial?
What issues should be considered when deciding whether or not to recuse from a case?
Recusals should happen when a presiding Justice would have stock in the outcome of the case, or if said Justice has inside knowledge of or took part in anything that may come up in the ongoing case.
What relative importance would you ascribe to expediency and thoroughness, respectively, when considering cases and drafting rulings?
A balance of speedy yet thorough consideration of the presented information is crucial. Trials and Legal Questions that drag on for weeks tend to have the same information presented over and over again. On the other side, a Justice must make sure they have given enough time so that most, if not all, pertinent information is received to come up with the most accurate ruling.
How important is it to explain within a ruling the legal, customary, evidentiary and other arguments that contributed towards a decision?
Its very important for the Justices to explain how they came to the ruling, and on what legal grounds. The more information that the Court can give, the more likely it is to be understood, which can lead to less appeals or other legal questions on the same basis.

What role should the Court have with respect to the balance of power between the three branches of government?
Since the Judicial Act requires that all of the Justices be legislators, its my understanding that the Assembly wanted an active legislator to be Justice. As such, a Justice should be active in the Assembly. The Associate Justices are not legally firewalled from running for executive office, but, in my opinion, shouldn't hold both an Associate Justice and an elected executive government position.
What role should judges have in regional, political and governmental life?
See answer to last question.
What steps should judges take to avoid conflicts of interest in fact and by appearance?
A Justice should recuse them-self if there is a conflict of interest.
Should the High Court seek to train judicial and legal talent? If it should, why, and what steps should be taken to train talent? Would your skills and prior experiences be useful for that? If it should not, why not?
Yes. While the Justice appointments are "lifetime" appointments, there are times that a judiciary position becomes available in some way, shape, or form. At these times, it'd be helpful to the sitting Cabinet that is appointing the Justice(s) to have able legislators to choose from.
What role should public opinion and pressure, potential popularity or unpopularity, personal views or friendships and political alliances play in the judicial process?
None. When ruling, the Court is legally obligated to - per the Judicial Act - "not be influenced by prejudice based on personal bias, corruption by undue influence, or discord" (2.1.a).

Mock Court: Appending of Titles
Determination of Justiciability

Whereas Steamland has requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question:

Does adding one's elected position to a statement make it an official statement?

Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.

It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:

The question is deemed justifiable.
The question shall be assigned the case number HCLQ0000 and be referred to in full as Official Government Statements.
The Court invites all able and willing members to submit their views and stances on this Legal Question in the form of amicus cruise briefs, no later than 27 February 2019.
The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
The Court retains, in compliance with the Charter and the Judicial Act, the sole right to issue an opinion on this Legal Question.

It is so ordered.


Rebeltopia
Associate Justice



----------



HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
-
HCLQ0000
-
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS

Does adding one's elected position to a statement make it an official statement?

1 March 2019

Justice Rebeltopia delivered the Opinion.



Summary of Opinion

It is the opinion of the court that actions that do not violate any specific law cannot be found as illegal.

There are no laws - forumside or in-game - that dictate what an official release from the Local Council may or may not look like, or that any number of Local Councilors must sign off on such a statement. By adding the Local Councilors title to the post, it can be reasonably said to be an official statement from that - and only that - Councilor. Interpretation of gameside laws and guidelines are the responsibility of the Local Council, and interpretations of those laws and guidelines are subject each Councilor. If one would like to have the backing of the rest of the office, all they must do is have proof that the others agree, and they can make the post for the Council as a whole.

As such, the High Court concludes that Adding one's elected Position to any statements do indeed make it an official statement from a member of that elected position, but not necessarily that of the whole group."
Mock Court: Organa v. Palpatine
Determination of Justiciability

Whereas Bail Organa requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the application of the Criminal Code with the following question:

"I contend that Prime Minister Palpatine has committed treason, by attempting to dissolve the Coalition without the consent of the Assembly."

Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of probable cause that the preliminary evidence presented constitutes commission of a crime;

It is resolved with respect to this question as follows:

It is deemed not justiciable, on account that the preliminary evidence presented does not constitute probable cause that Palpatine has committed treason.
This determination does not preclude the future filing of charges with additional evidence that would address the concerns expressed herewith.

It is so ordered.


Rebeltopia
Associate Justice


----------



In-Chambers Opinion


The Criminal Code defines Treason as ""plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the Delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists."" The filer is correct in stating that ""dissolving the Coalition should count under 'plotting against the Coalition,'"" the Court has found that, at this moment, the accused has not single-handedly dissolved the Charter, and therefore has not plotted against the Coalition.

While some may the statement made by Palpatine egregious, it does not fall under the definition of treason.


Rebeltopia
Associate Justice

What roles do the letter and the spirit of the law have in judicial interpretation, and with respect to each other?
I believe the letter and spirit of the law are both important pillars of judicial interpretation. However, when these two elements present an incongruence, I believe the spirit of the law should be upheld over the letter of the law, unless it is apparent that the following the letter of the law will result in the most appropriate outcome in one's reading of the law.
To what extent should the customary understanding and application of a law inform its interpretation by a judge?
The customary understanding and application of the law should inform its interpretation to a certain extent, unless the letter of the law presents an obvious contradiction to its interpretation.
To what extent should prior rulings bind or guide the decision of a judge? What is the importance of judicial precedent in informing cases?
Judicial precedent and prior rulings should hold some weight in decisions insofar as it should guide the Court in developing a more complete understanding of the spirit of the law as have been interpreted in prior rulings.
Under what circumstances would custom, judicial precedent and other sources of interpretation not be useful as a means of informing a judge?
Where prior rulings diverge from the law in its present wording due to legislative changes or where judicial precedent is erroneous, then the Court shall be at liberty to overturn or disregard such precedent.
What is the importance of amicus curiae briefs, testimonies and questioning in the consideration of cases?
Briefs and testimonies are important insofar as it provides the Court with a multitude of views that the Court should take into account when seeking to understand the spirit of the law. However, as such briefs may be prejudiced by an individual's bias that will sway the Court towards a viewpoint or another, the Court should not ascribe particular importance towards one brief over another, nor should briefs form the foundation of the Court's decision in a particular ruling.
What issues should be considered when deciding the justiciability of a case or when finding probable cause of a crime?
The justiciability of a case should be predicated upon whether the questions set forth in the case have merit or are otherwise substantive enough to be of value to judicial precedent or otherwise have significant impact upon the legislative and executive branches of government. Should they be consider superfluous or of a political nature, then the question should be discarded.

When it comes to probable cause, the Court should consider the motivations behind the Petitioner's filing of such cases and whether the charges set forth merit. The Court should also consider whether circumstantial evidence, insofar as is available to the Court, merits the filing of criminal charges.
What issues should be considered when deciding whether or not to recuse from a case?
Whether the Justice has a conflict of interest in a case or where a Justice could potentially be perceived as an interested party in a case, the Justice should be recused.
What relative importance would you ascribe to expediency and thoroughness, respectively, when considering cases and drafting rulings?
The Court should, barring the most exceptional circumstances, hold thoroughness as its primary impetus behind drafting rulings, to provide the most holistic outcome. Exceptional circumstances may include questions related to regional security or electoral disputes, where the Court ought to be thorough, yet be expedient in its ruling. With regards to this, the Court should perhaps be charged with the power to issue interim rulings/instructions.

When it comes to the consideration of cases, expediency should be the Court's primary impetus, as most considerations should be rather straightforward. The Court should also be able to provide, in a reasonable amount of time, the reasons for a case's non-justiciability, should it be warranted.
How important is it to explain within a ruling the legal, customary, evidentiary and other arguments that contributed towards a decision?
It is important to explain fully all relevant factors that contributed towards a decision, to ensure that a decision has been holistically and fully contemplated prior to its publication. The robust explanation will also provide for greater insight and clarity when it comes to judicial precedent.
What role should the Court have with respect to the balance of power between the three branches of government?
The Court should serve as an arbitrator and mediator between the executive and legislative branches of government should conflict arise, serving as the ultimate balance in the balance of power.
What role should judges have in regional, political and governmental life?
Judges should remain active participants in the region and government as their judicial experience may provide valuable contributions and insights to the legislature. However, with regards to political opinions, judges should be mindful to remain largely neutral in public discourse, for fear that members of the region may conflate one's personal opinions to be one's legal representation.
What steps should judges take to avoid conflicts of interest in fact and by appearance?
Non-inference in overtly political discourse, both within and outside the region. Judges should also refrain from making snide comments in public, especially where there exists a disagreement between members of the legislature.
Should the High Court seek to train judicial and legal talent? If it should, why, and what steps should be taken to train talent? Would your skills and prior experiences be useful for that? If it should not, why not?
Yes. While the Judiciary may present high barriers of entry in itself, the Court should not shy away from training members who are interested or otherwise experienced in legal issues as Court Interns, Clerks or to service in a Judicial Reserve to broaden the scope of legal experience in the South Pacific.
What role should public opinion and pressure, potential popularity or unpopularity, personal views or friendships and political alliances play in the judicial process?
A Justice should first and foremost uphold impartiality toward public opinion or other issues of a personal nature, seeking to contemplate only one's legal considerations when it comes to the judicial process.

Mock Court: Appending of Titles
Question is justiciable as Petitioner has demonstrated that the question has merit, as a precursor to a follow up case, the filing of which will rest upon the Court's ruling in this instance

Ruling:
It is in the opinion of this Court that appending one's title to a statement alone does not constitute an official statement, unless the statement in question relates to the official's job scope.

At the outset, members should note that this question differs in substance from the question posed in SCLQ1304, as the testimony submitted to the Court by Local Councillor Veggie Basket would suggest that the Councillor has a habit of appending his title to his posts ""when they are not part of an ongoing conversation"". The Court has in this instance, chosen to interpret this statement broadly, assuming that the Councillor will append his title to all his RMB posts be it an act of role-play or in his official duties. This makes it largely indistinguishable as to when he is acting in his official capacity and when he is not.

Thus, this Court argues that the opinion as rendered by Justice QuietDad in SCLQ1304 is somewhat erroneous in that it suggests that all posts to which one's position is appended constitutes official statements, not having considered the various instances in which one's position can be appended to a post. The Court is of the opinion that a more nuanced approach should be applied to the issue at hand, putting into contemplation whether the official appending the title is discharging their duties as set forth by the Charter and relevant laws or whether the post relates to miscellaneous matters that should, under reasonable contemplation, be perceived as being a post made by a member of the South Pacific community."
Mock Court: Organa v. Palpatine
The Court finds probable case that Prime Minister Palpatine has committed Treason.

The Charter states in Article II, Section 1 that
""The sovereignty of the region lies with the Coalition of the South Pacific. No other group claiming legitimacy will be recognized. The integrity of the Coalition, in its forums and the region, shall not be challenged or violated by any government official, internal dissidents, or other regions.""

The Section explicitly states that the region is the Coalition and that it ""shall not be challenged or violated by any government official"".

While the Defence argues that the Defendant was making a statement, the Court ruled in SCLQ1304 that statements bearing a letterhead constitute official statements. Seeing as the statement made by the Defendant was made in the name of the Prime Minister, it can thus be deduced that this statement was made in an official capacity and should not simply be viewed as a remark from a citizen.

The Court also ruled in HCCC1701 that although a single statement alone does not constitute treason, the Court ought to apply a holistic view of the Defendant's actions. Thus, while this declaration to dissolve the Coalition alone does not necessary constitute treason, the Defendant's intent to commit Treason by removing the power of its democratic institutions is clear.