| [Legal Question] Trials Against Former Citizens |
|
Dear Courts,
I would like to ask the following legal question: May a citizen request a trial against a former citizen for crimes committed while they were a citizen\resident of the South Pacific? Specifically, I am thinking about Milograd's coup and then subsequent trial when he was banjected from the region and lost citizenship. Then, currently I am thinking about Belschaft and that he is no longer a citizen but committed what I believe to be a crime when he was a citizen against TSP. Amended: What legal or provisions are in place for those who would want to file charges against an offender, the offender rescinds their citizenship or has it rescinded and then later on returns at some point for citizenship? Thank you for your attention 
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest HCLQ1504
- 07.03.15 -
Petitioner
Escade
Presiding Justices
Awe, Aramanchovia, Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Farengeto
Dear Courts, I would like to ask the following legal question: May a citizen request a trial against a former citizen for crimes committed while they were a citizen\resident of the South Pacific? Specifically, I am thinking about Milograd's coup and then subsequent trial when he was banjected from the region and lost citizenship. Then, currently I am thinking about Belschaft and that he is no longer a citizen but committed what I believe to be a crime when he was a citizen against TSP. Amended: What legal or provisions are in place for those who would want to file charges against an offender, the offender rescinds their citizenship or has it rescinded and then later on returns at some point for citizenship? Thank you for your attention Majority Opinion
Awe, Aramanchovia, Hopolis
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Escade. The Court will refrain from commenting on individual cases, especially those handled by its preceding entities under a different Court system and a different set of laws. However, it is in the opinion of the High Court that a trial may be requested against a resident of the South Pacific, as defined in the Bill of Rights in the Charter: Quote:Article 2, Bill of Rights, CharterThe above implies that residents in the in-game region of the South Pacific shall be able to defend themselves in a court of law, while being accorded due process. However, the Court acknowledges that contradictions exist in Article 4, Section 2.1 of the Charter, as stated below: Quote:Article 4, Section 2.1, CharterThe above implies that only citizens may be charged in the Courts, which is contradictory to what is stated in the Bill of Rights. As such, the Court will exercise its power to reconcile contradictions within the Charter, as accorded to it by virtue of Article 4, Section 1.4 of the Charter, which states: Quote:Article 4, Section 1.4, CharterIn light of the above provision, the Court suggests that mentions of 'citizen' in Article 4, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Charter be replaced with 'resident' instead, in line with the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights. This also serves to reaffirm the Court's commitment to protecting the rights of residents of the region, through reconciling in favour of the Bill of Rights. Pertaining the issue of charges being filed against former citizens, the Court is of the opinion that a former citizen can still be charged as long as the nation involved, or its puppets, is still resident in the in-game South Pacific region. As for former residents, the Court is of the opinion that the provision does not apply to them at this point in time. In doing so, the Court acknowledges that should the players decide to return to the South Pacific in-game region, they will be faced with a criminal trial. This would necessitate a statue of limitations, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice as a result of future Justices not having sufficient knowledge of the incident or adequate terms of reference for the conducting of a trial, the discussion of which the Court would refer back to the Assembly. The Court further acknowledges that there is an ongoing discussion which may amend relevant clauses referenced in this ruling. As such, this ruling shall remain binding until the passing of an amendment to this clause. In the event that the law contradicts with this ruling, the law shall take precedence. However, if the amendment passed still contradicts provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights shall take precedence, and the amendment shall as such be reconciled in favour of the provisions set forth in the Bill of Rights.
I would like to thank the High Court and look forward to pending legislation that will help clarify things further. Thank you
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
So... if I commit a major crime all I have to do is leave and wait for the statute of limitations to expire?
This is what I was thinking. I can't file charges against a person who leaves residence. However, if they return then a unclear statute of limitations may prevent me from filing charges. So it's a bit of a paradox.
I'm wondering if any of the legislation up for discussion would help clarify? Also why the statute of limitations should only apply in certain cases. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |