| Review Request (overturn a decision by a government institution or official) [2209.HR] In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV |
I wish to stress the fact that this should not be made a regular occurrence, but I also acknowledge that in this particular case it is in the best public interest to exercise a certain degree of transparency.
The Court voted in favour of justiciability in the interest of allowing for further opportunity for review. This has no bearing on what the Court may ultimately rule. It is entirely possible that the Court may rule that deference ought to be given to the Chair and that no sufficiently egregious cause was found that would warrant corrective action. It is entirely possible that the Court may rule the opposite. The fact remains that the Court wished to hear those arguments in further detail and that an admitted case is the best venue to do so. 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 HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENT Your Honor, Article Three, Section Five of the Charter does not prevent the amendment from taking effect because Article Thirteen, Section Two of the Charter supersedes it. Whereas Article Three, Section Five of the Charter deals with general laws, Article Thirteen, Section Two, however, directly deals with amendments. It is only natural that a section directly dealing with amending the Charter should take precedence over a general provision found somewhere else. Even if Article Three, Section Five of the Charter does effect amendments, the petitioner's claim would still be meritless. The Chair has the power to determine whether or not an amendment affects the gameside community and cannot be challenged unless that determination is "sufficiently egregious." The Chair has ruled that this amendment does not affect the gameside community. Although the petitioner claims that the amendment removes the right of consent; therefore, it does affect the gameside community, the Court cannot sustain this claim because valid arguments to the contrary are present, namely that the amendment does not have any direct effect on the day-to-day operation of the gameside community. Naturally, the question of why that argument is "sufficiently egregious" arises. Petitioner does not explain why this reasoning is "sufficiently egregious," Since they are trying to overturn the Chair, they must provide not merely present an alternative rationale to the contrary. The Chair’s ruling is not egregious or even "sufficiently egregious" and can be substantiated by a logical argument. Thus, the Chair's determination about the said amendment is legally valid. Since the judgment is legally correct, how can the amendment legally affect the gameside community? Therefore, the decision of the Chair must be affirmed. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
Your Honors,
Brief amicus curiae in the matter of in-game consent for A2205.05 Is the Chair's decision challengeable in this Court? Domais is wrong to claim that Article XIII of the Charter somehow "supersedes" Article III. Interpreted correctly, there is no conflict between the provisions at all. Article XIII, section 2 affords the Chair of the Assembly the discretion to rule on whether an amendment affects the gameside community. However, this discretion is not unfettered. The various provisions of Article III, as well as other elements of constitutional law, set limits on how this discretion may be exercised. Were, for example, the Assembly to decide in future to carry out its threat to abolish the Local Council, and voted to amend the Charter by repealing Article V, the Chair of the Assembly could decide in accordance with Article XIII that the amendment does not require gameside consent. According to Domais' argument, this decision could not be challenged by this Court despite being an obvious breach of the gameside's Article III rights. What is a "sufficiently egregious" breach? The Petitioner and the opponents of this petition are in agreement that, if the Court's power to overturn the Chair's decision exists at all, it should only be exercised in cases where the Chair's abuse of power is "sufficiently egregious" to merit judicial intervention. This is a high bar. In English law there is a principle known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, which holds that a court may only find a decision unreasonable if no reasonable person, acting reasonably, could have made it. It is not enough for a court to say it would have acted differently. While the High Court of the South Pacific is not an English law jurisdiction, I submit that the Wednesbury principle is a sound enough basis on which the Court should approach cases like these. In other words, the issue before the Court is whether a reasonable Chair, acting reasonably, could possibly have concluded that the amendment to Article XIV of the Charter does not "directly affect" the gameside community. Although this is a high bar, I submit that it has been met in this case. The text of Article XIV itself makes clear that the purpose of a Great Council is to rewrite or amend the constitutional laws of the South Pacific in a systematic manner. As well as removing the gameside's role in the convening of Great Councils, as highlighted by the petitioner, the amended Article XIV provides no protection for the gameside in any form. To repeat the example above, it would allow a Great Council to abolish the Local Council without gameside consent, since Article III, Section 5 of the Charter only prevents the Assembly from passing laws that affect the gameside without their consent. The amended Article XIV therefore represents a significant diminution of the gameside's rights to self-determination. It may be that the gameside community is happy to defer to the forum in this regard, and give up their rights to approve the output of Great Councils. However, no reasonable Chair could possibly conclude that this was the case without first asking them. Remedy As the Petitioner points out, the Court has the power to strike down the Chair's decision to refuse a gameside vote in accordance with Article III, Section 6 of the Charter. It also has the power to declare the Chair's decision void in accordance with Article VIII, Section 4. The effect of using either of these powers would be identical in practice, requiring the Chair to submit the amendment to a gameside vote before the amendment is adopted as part of the Charter. The Court will also need to decide, as a consequential matter, how to approach the passage by the assembly of resolution A2205.06, which purports to convene a Great Council under the revised Article XIV. In accordance with the rules of the High Court, I remain at the Court's disposal for follow-up questions and clarifications.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2209.HR] IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV SUBMISSION 02 JUN 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 05 JUN 2022 CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE ORDER, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR. Whereas this Court is empowered by Article 9 of the Judicial Act to make use of temporary injunctions compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts, it is ordered as follows: BACKGROUND On 29 May 2022 Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands certified the passage of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils, an amendment to the Charter that revamped the process to convene and hold Great Councils, without referring the same to a gameside vote. On 02 June 2022 Belschaft submitted a review request on the matter contenting that, owing to the fact that the amendment removes the mechanism of gameside consultation as a requirement to convene a Great Council, the Chair ought to have referred the matter to a gameside vote as per Article III, Section 5 and Article XIII, Section 2 of the Charter. Given the magnitude of a Great Council and the ambiguity should one be convened without clarity on its legal legitimacy, preventive action is necessary to ensure an orderly process within the bounds of the law. TEMPORARY INJUNCTION The Chair of the Assembly is hereby ordered not to certify the passage of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils and of any resolutions that may have been brought to a vote pursuant to it. In the event that either the amendment or any resolutions that may have been brought to a vote pursuant to it have already been certified, the Chair of the Assembly is hereby ordered not to bring to a vote any resolution pursuant to the amendment and the Chair of the Great Council is hereby ordered not to convene said meeting. This injunction will remain in force until the High Court issues a ruling on the underlying case, at which point the same shall take precedence, or until two weeks have expired and no extension shall have intervened, whichever happens first. It is so ordered.
2209.HR.SO | Issued 07 Jun 2022 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
The Court invites the Chair of the Assembly to provide further information on their determination on the matter of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV (V.2) and the reasons that prompted its outcome.
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
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC INVITATION TO INFORM ARGUMENT Your Honours, The amendment to Article XIV does indeed take away the confirmation referendum for Great Council resolutions, however the way I viewed and still view it, it only indirectly affects the game-side. The Council could affect the game-side directly, but it doesn't mean it will in and of itself and as such can only indirectly affect it. I do not find it egregious to not refer the bill to the game-side when it doesn't directly affect it as required by law. In my consideration, I also noted that it is a fact that representatives (or anyone for that matter) of the game-side may attend a Great Council, and have a voice and vote in all matters, including those that directly affect the game-side. There's not much else to say unless I write a bunch of tautologies. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
The argument has been made that A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils deprives the gameside community from a certain power that it had. Could you provide insight into how you factored in that consideration, if such was the case?
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
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC INVITATION TO INFORM ARGUMENT Your Honours, Even though it does deprive them of confirming Great Council resolutions, I view it as not directly affecting it's activities nor governance. I did consider it, but, as stated previously, I truly don't see eye-to-eye with Belschaft on this one so I chose not to hold a referendum. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
The Court would welcome amicus curiae briefs on possible tests of review of Chair determinations and the level to which such reviews should be held.
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
Your honour,
I request that the period for amicus curiae briefs be extended until the end of Saturday 18th of June UTC at minimum. I had intended to have submitted a brief already but have been delayed by work arrangements IRL. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |