I'd like to propose that we update and change the rules and procedures of the court. Namely, I want to add procedures for Legal Questions, and completely change the way we do criminal trials. Our current way is very cumbersome, taking an incredibly long time. Criminal trials in NS tend to be jokes when we attempt to do the traditional defense/prosecution system. A better way is if the Justice themselves directs the trial, gathering all evidence (including exonerating evidence), questioning witnesses, and then determining innocence or guilt. There's no reason to have so many people involved in a criminal trial. These new procedures would make the process faster and easier.

Rules and Procedures of The High Court of The South Pacific
 
Article I. Judicial Conduct.
1. In conducting business of the High Court, Court Justices and Acting Justices should uphold the following qualities:

a. Fairness  - Avoid prejudice based on personal bias, instead rule upon what is written in law.
b. Prudence  - Consider the impact of Court rulings carefully, and ensure whenever possible, that no individual should be able to gain personal benefit or otherwise exploit rulings of the Court.
c. Integrity - Avoid corruption by undue influence beyond the realm of the Court in the discharge of one's duties.
d. Resilience  - Justices and the Court may face backlash and criticism for the discharge of our duties, but the prospect of discord should not deter the Court from reaching the proper decision.
e. Teamwork - Maintain good communication with the community and fellow Justices.
f. Honor - To serve and dignify the region in the maintenance of an important security apparatus.
 
Article II. Legal Question Procedures.
1. Legal Questions may be submitted by any citizen to the Court when there is a question on what a law means or what is required or prohibited by the law.
2. When submitting a Legal Question, the Petitioner must include all relevant portions of law and the questions they seek to be answered.
3. Once submitted, the presiding Justice will determine if the Legal Question is justiciable, or if the issues involved are too vague or of a political nature and must be denied.
4. Denial of a Legal Question may not be appealed, as no formal decision has been delivered, but the Petitioner may submit a new Legal Question that is justiciable.
5. If the presiding Justice determines that the Legal Question is justiciable, they will analyze the issues and laws, and deliver an Opinion with all deliberate speed.
6. Should the presiding Justice fail to deliver an Opinion in a reasonable time, determined on a case-by-case basis, the Petitioner may request another Justice hear the case, or another Justice may take over the case.
7. The Opinion of the presiding Justice on a Legal Question may only be appealed on grounds of violation of procedural due process, a contradiction of law, or judicial misconduct.
8. If the Petitioner files for an appeal, a Justice who was not involved in the deliberation of the case will deliberate the validity of the appeal and issue an Opinion upholding, vacating, or remanding the Legal Question to be reheard.
8. If the Petitioner files for an appeal, the full bench of the Court will sit to deliberate the validity of the appeal and issue an Opinion upholding, vacating, or remanding the Legal Question to be reheard.
9. The Opinion on an appeal is final and may not be further appealed, except in cases of extreme judicial misconduct.
 
Article III. Criminal Procedures.
 
Section 1. Filing Charges.
1. Any citizens may file a charge of criminal conduct against another. When filing a charge, the Petitioner must include the relevant criminal law, the details of the alleged crime, and sufficient preliminary evidence.
2. The presiding Justice will determine, within 72 hours, whether the preliminary evidence warrants the opening of an official Criminal Case against the alleged Defendant.
3. A determination that the preliminary evidence is insufficient may not be appealed, but shall not be construed to deny the future filing of charges with more sufficient preliminary evidence.
 
Section 2. Trial.
1. Upon determination that the preliminary evidence is sufficient, an official Criminal Case will be opened by the presiding Justice. The Defendant will be notified and has 72 hours to confirm receipt of knowledge that a case has been opened against them.
2. If the Defendant fails to confirm, the presiding Justice will declare the Defendant to be tried in absentia, voiding all rights of the Defendant to self-defense.
3. The presiding Justice will be responsible for gathering all necessary and relevant evidence, questioning witnesses, seeking expert testimony, and analyzing all materials before delivering a Verdict.
4. If the Defendant is not being tried in absentia, they must be afforded the right to submit their defense and provide exonerating evidence. The Defendant must submit their defense within the timeframe given by the presiding Justice, which shall not be less than 48 hours.
5. The presiding Justice shall not issue a Verdict of guilty if the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a Verdict. In the event that the evidence does not support a Verdict of guilty, then the presiding Justice shall issue a Verdict of “not guilty.”
6. The presiding Justice shall strive to conclude a Criminal Case within two weeks.
7. If a Verdict of guilty is reached, the presiding Justice shall determine an appropriate sentence, if one is not explicitly prescribed by law.
 
Section 3. Appeal.
1. The Verdict delivered by the presiding Justice may be appealed on grounds of violation of procedural due process, judicial misconduct, or submission of new potentially exonerating evidence. Sentences may not be appealed, unless the sentence violates or contradicts law.
2. Upon petition by the Convicted for appeal, a Justice not involved in the Criminal Case will deliberate the validity of the appeal.
2. Upon petition by the Convicted for appeal, the full bench of the court will deliberate the validity of the appeal.
3. If new potentially exonerating evidence is submitted, the appellate Justice (the Court) will analyze the new evidence and determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants a reversal of the guilty Verdict.
4. If the appellate Justice (the Court) determines that procedural due process or judicial misconduct occurred, they shall deliver an Order for re-trial.
5. In cases of judicial misconduct allegations only, the original presiding Justice shall be recused from presiding over the appeal or the new trial.
6. If a sentence is found to be in violation or contradiction of the law, the appellate Justice (the Court) shall issue a new sentence conforming to the law.

The italicized parts are dependent on what kinds of reform passes in the Great Council.

Reply

Can you make the original parts subtracted, and the proposed part bold?

So I can look at it easier?

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Reply

Everything outside of the first article is new.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Wait a minute. Where is the Chief Justice clause?

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Reply

The office of the Chief Justice may no longer exist after the GC. No proposals currently call for one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Even so, the Chief Justice still exists.

After reading this and the current version, the proposal seems easier and better to understand and do than the current version. However, I suggest that all residents, not just citizens, be subject to the Court. Like now.

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Reply

If the Chief Justice position is kept, I'll add language for it. I don't plan on proposing this until after the GC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply