Your honour,
In his ruling on HCLQ1705 Justice Farengeto errs severely, and in doing so produces several contradictions of law. As such, it is imperative that this ruling be overturned and new ruling issued.
In his ruling Justice Farengeto refers to Article 3.1 of the Charter, and on this basis proclaims;
"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."
Article 3 of the Charter and Article 3.1 in specific applies only to
members of the Coalition - this specific word being used in both the preambulary clause of Article 3, and in Article 3.1 itself. Your honour, the CRS is not a
member of the Coalition, it is an institution of the Coalition. The CRS does not possess individual rights, nor can it's statements or actions be considered covered by "free speech". Statements or actions of the CRS are not merely opinions of an individual, but represent an official statement or action of the institution and carry legal weight and effect. Whilst an individual may have - in the absence of laws against defamation - the right to make accusations of criminal behaviour without pressing charges, the CRS does not. Your honour, this is a clear and unquestionable contradiction of the law, and by itself renders the entire ruling invalid.
In addition to this Justice Farengeto makes further error by issuing a ruling with the effect of abridging the right to a fair trial, in direct contradiction of Article 3.2 that explicitly prohibits such. Article 3.2 states "criminal accusations" in regards to the right to a trial, but Justice Farengeto interprets this as meaning the "formal filing of criminal charges". Your honour, this is blatantly absurd. The "formal filing of criminal charges" is the first part of the legal process to begin a trial under our laws, and as such under Justice Farengeto's ruling an individual only has a right to a fair trial where they are already receiving one. This has the effect of negating Article 3.2 entirely, as a body such as the CRS can act entirely legally by substituting a non-judicial process for the mandated judicial one, and yet not have breached an individuals right to a fair trial. Bill of rights protections do not only apply in one specific section of this forum. An individual is not guaranteed a fair trial against criminal accusations made in the High Court, but against criminal accusations in general.
We address here not only a question of legal theory but also a question of legal facts. This matter is not theoretical, but relates to the way the CRS is currently exercising it's powers under the SPA. I quote from the CRS report issued on the 24th of April;
"He aided a hostile foreign region, by providing advice on foreign affairs, divulging privileged information, and making offers to push back against anti-Osiris and anti-Empire sentiment in the region."
This clearly describes actions that would meet the legal definitions of Treason, Espionage and Organised Crime.
"aided a hostile foreign region" is an obvious re-wording of
"aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against", which is part of the literal definition of treason. No reasonable individual can interpret this in any way other than a criminal accusation, by an official institution of the Coalition. That this accusation is then followed by the imposition of a legal penalty makes this even clearer.
Your honour, the question at hand is not one of linguistic semantics, but of basic rights. A criminal accusation is not defined by where it is made or via what form of wording, but by the legal effect it has. By interpreting the right to a trial in such a manner that it only applies should the body making criminal accusations wishes it to - which is the effect of Justice Farengeto's ruling - this right has been abridged to such an extent as to render it non-existent. Should the CRS be allowed to choose whether or not those they make criminal accusations against receive a trial, no individual so accused will ever receive a trial. It is precisely this kind of unconstitutional behaviour that Article 3.2 is meant to prevent.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media