---

---

---

---

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.

---

---

---

---

After deliberations including both TSP law and consultation of its real world equivalents, the following is the opinion of this court.

In their judicial context “Criminal accusations”, as used in the Section 2 of the Rights and Freedoms, is generally used to refer to the formal filing of criminal charges. After consideration and a reading of TSP law it is the opinion of this Court that this definition should similarly apply to TSP within the context of Charter Article 3.2. Statements made outside the jurisdiction of the High Court in non-judicial contexts that may be interpreted as suggesting criminal actions - made formally or informally - can therefore not be considered as “criminal accusations” for the purposes of Article 3.2. The right to freely make such statements with no judicial power is protected by Article 3.1, while remaining subject to the restrictions outlined in our laws.

When facing criminal accusations as defined above the Court reserves its constitutional power as the sole authority with the ability to conduct criminal trials. No procedures within our current laws may substitute a trial for determining guilt when an entity has been formally accused of criminal charges, and no other party may currently determine the guilt of a criminal accusation.

Any disputes of legality of the Security Powers Act, either in sections or as a whole, beyond those raised by the original question are outside the scope of this Legal Question. Any disputes on these subjects should be asked in a separate legal question.