| [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac |
What reason does the Defence have to request such a dismissal?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Defence wishes to present a foundational argument, as we do not believe that the prosecution has provided any evidence proving that an act of treason has actually occurred. In the absence of such an act, the defendant cannot possibly be convicted.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
The Court must remind the Defence that no conviction has taken place, nor has the evidence been accepted as proof of any crime. In compliance with the Court Procedures Act, the evidence and witnesses have been accepted for their subsequent use in the trial phase of this proceeding, where both the Prosecution and the Defence will have an opportunity to cross-examine them.
Given that no proof of guilt or conviction has been determined at this point, nor is one allowed by the law, the Court does not share the sentiment of the Defence that the Prosecution has failed to prove guilt. Such task is due in the incoming trial phase of this proceeding, rather than in the present phase. Until proven otherwise, following a fair trial, the Defendant remains an innocent individual in the eyes of the law and this Court. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honour, you misunderstand the Defence's contention. Defence does not believe that the prosecution has submitted any evidence of an act in general, not an act of treason in specific.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Given the nature of the contention, the Court will invite the Prosecution to respond with the utmost promptitude.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honor,
procedurally, the matter is clear. The Court had determined on September 2 that enough preliminary evidence had been submitted to warrant a trial. The Court Procedures Act does not specify a further evaluation of sufficiency as part of the Pre-Trial period, and therefore the trial cannot be dismissed on these grounds. To address the claim by the Defense, the Defendant's posts in and of themselves constitute an act. Whether this warrants a conviction is a matter for the trial period. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
Your honour,
The determination of September 2nd that sufficient preliminary evidence had been presented to proceed to trial did not, in of itself, constitute a determination that sufficient evidence had been presented to allow a trial to be brought to conclusion; merely that the preliminary evidence suggested that such an evidentiary basis existed that the complaint had merit enough for charges to be brought, in the expectation that more evidence would be presented during pre-trial. It was the duty of the prosecution to provide additional evidence in the discovery period that would allow this case to proceed further; as the Defence believes that the Prosecution has not done so, and considers the presented evidence insufficient for such purposes, we believe that it is only proper that we be allowed to present a motion to dismiss the charges. Defence does not believe that the Court can rule on the merits of said motion until we have presented it; it is leave to present said motion that we seek. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
On September 25, the Defence requested leave from this Court to present a motion to dismiss the charges against the Defendant. In his argument, the Defence Counsel suggested that the Defence did not "believe that the prosecution has provided any evidence proving that an act of treason has actually occurred".
In response, the Prosecution indicated that this Court had already ruled on the sufficiency of the preliminary evidence for its consideration in trial in its Statement of September 02, and further indicated that the Court Procedures Act mandated no additional consideration of sufficiency to proceed to trial. This was countered by the Defence Counsel with the assertion that the aforementioned determination "did not, in of itself, constitute a determination that sufficient evidence had been presented to allow a trial to be brought to conclusion", followed by a reiteration of the earlier request for leave to motion for the dismissal of charges. In considering the request, this Court held no doubt on the right of the Defence to issue it. However, it remained cognizant to the mandate of the Court Procedures Act that such motions, at this stage, must be of an extraordinary character. In interpreting said provision, the Court believes that it must be dependent on circumstances that would significantly alter the nature of the proceeding, or affect the ability of either party to obtain a fair proceeding. The Court does not believe that the evidence presented by the Prosecution presents such a significant change in circumstances, nor does it share the sense of urgency that the Defence has implied. It must be noted that evidence still remains to be collected, in the form of witness testimonies, which may or may not alter the circumstances of this case. If, after said collection, such a change presented itself, the Court would be willing to entertain a request for leave. Until that time, however, it is not the opinion of the Court that a leave to motion for dismissal is necessary. For the above reasons, the request for leave is denied. It is so ordered. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
In the interest of expediency, the Court is instituting a deadline of October 12 11:00 EST for the Prosecution and the Defence to agree on a reasonable time for the collection of witness testimony. Should both parties fail to reach such an agreement, the Court will assign a time.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honor,
the Prosecution requests removal of Witness W2 (Ryccia) as force majeure prevents them from reasonably testifying.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |