| Charter of the High Court of the South Pacific |
|
Fellow Justices,
As I have previously mentioned, I have drafted a Charter for the High Court, to establish procedures for cases and ethics for Justices. I apologise for its length (15 articles and 10 pages long, several parts are copied from the Charter/CoL). Click here to view and edit the Charter Here are some of the significant changes: Establishing the High Court as a sovereign branch of the South Pacific Defining the role of the Chief Justices as primus inter pares, or first among equals In criminal cases, duties previously assigned to the Chief Justice, such as determining contempt of court, are now under the aegis of the Chief Presiding Justice, one of among 3 Justices presiding over a case, for purposes of efficiency As from the GC, fraud is no longer an offence and is replaced by electoral fraud. Contempt of court is now an offence Additional penalties that can be given by the Court include disenfranchisement and being barred from running for office Establishment of the Court as being both based on codified law and uncodified precedent Provisions for disclosure of Private Office deliberations and strict protection against divulging and illegal obtaining of such deliberations. Outstanding matters: It may possibly be in contravention of the Bill of Rights to bar someone from office or disenfranchise said person How should I label sections and subsections in the Charter? In particular, the section on Criminal Case Procedures? Should we include provisions for a prosecution arm? Should leaking or illegally obtaining deliberations of the High Court be considered treason? Thoughts and opinions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks. References: Charter Code of Laws Criminal Case Procedure GC Discussion Ethics
Hi Awe,
Fantastic! I think this identifies most of my areas of concern.  I can't see the link though?I will hold back my thoughts until I get a chance to read it but in regards to the question "Should leaking or illegally obtaining deliberations of the High Court be considered treason?" my view would be not in itself (it should be a separate offence) but... if you were to hypothetically leak the old deliberations of the High Court to undermine a former justices run at the delegacy it could be used as a supporting charge in a treason case.
Fixed with apologies! You should be able to view the document with the 'Click here to view and edit the Charter' link now
Made a few more edits:
Nice work!
No major problems with the processes etc from my end from a quick scan, just a few typos etc you will need to fix: Section V 1: for for - repeated word. Section VI 1: filed, not filled. Section X: Seems to run on here. 6D onwards might need to be 7, 8 etc? The key changes mentioned may cause a few issues with some people if this is bought to the assembly, as any change will, but I personally am supportive of them and think they address key gaps quite well. I need to have a better read when I am more awake, been a long day. From an initial look though, 10/10 effort. (02-11-2015, 08:41 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: Nice work! Errors fixed with thanks!
Hi Awe,
A really solid piece of work you've drawn up here! I like the use of simpler language rather than cloaking it in legalese. I have a few thoughts/questions as follows: 1. Can we say 'he or she' or even 'they' instead of 'he' when referring to Justices? :tounge: 2. Is the 'Section 1' heading missing? 3. Article VI(2) - the 'J' in Justice should be upper case. Quote:2. A jJustice may file charges against a citizen, provided they recuse themselves from the case. 4. Article VI(3) - What is the consequence of ignoring the summons? Quote:If charges are filed against or on behalf of a former citizen, the Chief Presiding Justice may, at his discretion, issue summons to request that the individual return to stand trial or otherwise obtain testimony from the individual. 5. Does Chief Presiding Justice warrant it's own Article? I think the would be benefit in clarifying the position and it would allow you to move Article VI(4) into it which feels a better fit than Article VI. Quote:4. The Chief Presiding Justice will be responsible for keeping order in the court. He has the power to penalize citizens for being in contempt of the court. 6. Section 2, Article 1, Section 2 Pre-Trial - Should we also add to the list of pre-trial motions the opportunity for the defence or prosecution to extend their 72 hours? I'm thinking about things like people going on holiday etc. Quote:Subsequent to this both the Defence and the Prosecution may submit pre-trial motions, including but not limited to motions to dismiss the charges, alter the charges, request extra time for the preparation of their case and/or for one or more Court Justices to recuse themselves. Such motions should provide evidentiary reason to justify them, and will be considered by the Court Justices collectively. Such motions may be considered later at the discretion of the Court Justices, but will not be granted short of extraordinary circumstances outside of the pre-trial stage. Dismissal of charges does not result in jeopardy attaching to the complaint. 7. Section 2, Article 1, Section 2 Pre-Trial - Should the references to 'Chief Justice' here actually be 'Presiding Justice'? That's as far as I've got! I'll post more thoughts tomorrow. It's an Awesome Charter though! :wink:
1, 3 and 7 amended.
2. I don't see it. Can you tell me where this heading is missing? 4. I suppose we can invoke the excessive absenteeism clause Quote:If the Justice chooses to hear the case, it is required to do so in a timely manner. The Justice may issue summary judgments in favour of the defense or prosecution due to excessive absenteeism.EDIT: The clause only applies if the player involved was a citizen of TSP at the time when the crime was committed. Otherwise, the charges do not hold. I came to this conclusion after reading Cormac's post and cross-referencing it with this Legal Question, which explicitly states: Quote:For example, it is possible for one citizen of The Coalition to defame another citizen on the NationStates forums, the forums of another region or on IRC, etc.meaning that only persons that were citizens at the time of the crime can be charged I have confused myself. I'll leave it up to the Justices in the defamation case to decide if the precedent set in this Legal Question should be applied to former citizens due to its inconsistencies. 5. I don't quite understand this either. Also, is the Criminal Case Procedure understandable? Or is it too lengthy? Because it was Belschaft who wrote that. I'd also need to fix the formatting. Having articles and subsections within articles make no sense. Can someone make a suggestion on how to change this?
Excellent work, I'll see if I have any corrections later.
I just realised, we'd probably need to make this law, before trials can continue. Otherwise, we would not have criminal case procedure
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |