So I'm thinking the following:

(1) An appeal is a case for which the petitioner seeks to reverse or reevaluate a concluded case that itself is not an appeal. An appeal may be filed by any member of the South Pacific or by any non-member with a vested interest in the case.

(2) Appeals may only be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct, or upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion.

Basically, allow infinitely stacked appeals and allow appealing based on new evidence. A malicious individual can't appeal ad nauseam because the requirements as per (2) can't be met ad nauseam, therefore making the malicious person's attempts non-justiciable.

Reply

On mobile so this may not make sense... sorry.

I might be missing something in the background.Have there been cases where information hasn't been released to support somones case?

But What about putting in something at Article 3 requiring all relevant information to be submitted with the original case. This might remove the need for a retrial/appeal?

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

(This post was last modified: 06-09-2018, 01:49 AM by Beepee.)

Reply

So as to clarify, you are seeking a change which will make it possible to appeal an appeal?

Reply

I might be missing something in the background.Have there been cases where information hasn't been released to support somones case?

Not quite, but I did have a review request recently where new evidence surfaced that hadn't been available to the people whose decision was being challenged. So it's not impossible for new evidence to appear that hadn't been originally considered.

Unless you consider Milograd's refusal to participate in his treason trial a failure to release supporting information.

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

(This post was last modified: 06-09-2018, 08:55 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

So as to clarify, you are seeking a change which will make it possible to appeal an appeal?

That too, yes - that allows always reopening a case if there's new evidence. Though I just noticed - if a case was appealed, is the appeal appealed or the already appealed case appealed? And does it make sense to have multiple appeals simultaneously?

I've addressed this in this new draft below:

(1) An appeal is a case for which the petitioner seeks to reverse or reevaluate a case that itself is not an appeal. An appeal may only be filed if there is no other open appeal for that case, and must be filed against the most recently adjudicated appeal, if one exists.

(2) An appeal may be filed by any member of the South Pacific or by any non-member with a vested interest in the case.

(2)(3) Appeals may only be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct. For such an appeal, the assigned justice of the case being appealed is automatically recused from the appeal case.

(3) The assigned justice of the case being appealed is automatically recused from the appeal case.

(4) Appeals may be submitted upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion.

So, in simple terms:

• Appeals can be appealed too. This can't be abused, because
  
• When appealing a case that has been appealed before, you always appeal the latest appeal, since that's the most recent nominal opinion on a case.
  
• If an appeal is already running, you can't submit a new appeal. You can just submit an amicus brief for that other, already running appeal if you have something to say.
  
• New evidence submission can be used to appeal a case, and that doesn't require the previous justice to be recused.
  

Reply

I’m not a fan of allowing multiple appeals absent new evidence. There’s really not a good reason to allow it. :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

What would it hurt, or rather, how could it be abused?

Reply

You described above how it could be abused, then in the latest draft removed the one protection against abuse (only allowing appeals following new evidence). If there’s no limitation on *why* a decision can be appealed, people will appeal all decisions they don’t like. That’s why we limited it in the first place. This last draft allows appeals for any reason, ad infinitum. There’s no “only” anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

It's an enumeration of the reasons for which an appeal can be made. A whitelist, basically; the reason I removed the "only" was simply because there is now a second clause listing a way to appeal. There's some principle whose formal name escapes me that describes this, but basically by virtue of listing possibilities without stating "other", it can be inferred that only the listed possibilities are valid.

So, basically, the intent is that there are only the listed reasons for which an appeal can be made.

I can change the language, of course, to make that explicit.

Reply

It's definitely not clear that you're enumerating the only reasons that an appeal can be filed. So that language really needs to be changed, yeah.

Reply