Your honour,

Article III. Clause 3. of The Charter of The South Pacific declares;

Charter Article III Clause 3 Wrote:2. The right to a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations will not be abridged. No member may be subject to any bill of attainder, be tried for the same crime more than once, or be tried ex post facto.

My question is;

When an accusation of criminal behaviour or activities that would equal such (as defined by the Criminal Code of the South Pacific) has been made, may a process other than a Criminal Trial (as defined by the Court Procedures Act) be substituted for a Criminal Trial?

The petitioner believes that the substitution of any process other than a Criminal Trial, as defined by the Court Procedures Act, when an accusation of criminal behaviour or activities that would equal such has been made, represents an abridgement of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations, as granted via Article III of the Charter. As such, when an accusation of criminal behaviour or activities that would equal such has been made, no process other than a Criminal Trial may be used to address this situation.

Thus, where an accusation is not one of criminal behaviour or activities that would equal such, a process other than a Criminal Trial may be used to to address the situation, but no such process could be used in place of a Criminal Trial where one is required by the Charter.

The petitioner refers the court to the newly enacted Security Powers Act, which creates such an alternative process. The petitioner believes that the protection of the rights and freedoms granted via Article III of the Charter requires that legislation such as this be limited only to those accusations that fall outside the scope of the judicial system, as defined by the Criminal Code and the Court Procedures Act. Failure to issue such a limiting ruling would in effect represent the abridgement of Article III of the Charter.