@Belschaft and @sandaoguo:

Welcome to the Court!

I'm really happy that we'll be working together and, before we proceed any further, I'd like us to handle a few basic things regarding the business of the Court:

• I want to seek your confidence to remain as Chief Justice. I have no electoral ambitions, and I very much enjoy handling the more administrative aspects of judicial business.
  
• The Judicial Act requires a second Justice to approve all rulings. We could interpret this as to mean the second Justice merely has to sign off on things or that Justices should have a more active and collaborative relationship when considering cases. Within the realm of possibility, I would like the second case to be the norm, so that our cases aren't the product of a single Justice.
  
• Since appeals are always a possibility, I'd like us to commit to not contributing in any material way to cases in which we are not assigned, so the third Justice can avoid any and all conflicts of interest.
  
• I know we all have different philosophies about how outspoken a Justice can or should be, and how conflicts should be avoided, so I'm interested in having a discussion, just so we can have a minimum standard for the circumstances where we should ideally avoid giving political or compromising opinions.
  
• We have to discuss assignments for the pending legal question, and I'd like to discuss the justiciability of the Singapura review request.

These are all suggestions, rather than impositions, so I'm eager to hear what we can all ultimately decide.

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

Reply

The way the law is written, I don't this we should be having 2 justices work on each case. The goal of the change was mostly speed, and cowriting every opinion doesn't fit with the intent of the law. Rather, I think each justice should be handling their own cases and writing their own opinions, but those opinions need to be looked over for glaring errors, bias, conflict with other laws, etc. Basically a copyediting/proofreading thing, rather than cowriting.

Reply

I should probably clarify what I meant. I agree that cowriting rulings wouldn't fit the law, plus that would be burdensome. I do think, however, that the two Justices would be on the same page about what the ruling says, and my personal preference would be for that consultation to happen both before and after the ruling is drafted, rather than as a simple signoff at the end.

I don't know if that makes sense?

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

Reply

I’m not sure if I understand Will one Justice be responsible for handling a case and coming to a decision, with the second Justice making sure the opinion is sane (but not otherwise helping reach that decision)?

Reply

I suppose it depends on each of our own styles.

Personally, I would tend to discuss with the secondary Justice before I start writing, so we're both comfortable regarding the general answer to the LQ, and then have a second consolation when I have a finished draft.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

Reply

Welcome to the Court!
 
I'm really happy that we'll be working together and, before we proceed any further, I'd like us to handle a few basic things regarding the business of the Court:

• I want to seek your confidence to remain as Chief Justice. I have no electoral ambitions, and I very much enjoy handling the more administrative aspects of judicial business.
  

 
You have my full confidence.

• The Judicial Act requires a second Justice to approve all rulings. We could interpret this as to mean the second Justice merely has to sign off on things or that Justices should have a more active and collaborative relationship when considering cases. Within the realm of possibility, I would like the second case to be the norm, so that our cases aren't the product of a single Justice.
  

 
As I've said previously, I think it's a good idea to have a lead justice on each case in charge of the administrative aspects and writing the decision, but with the other justices asking questions as they feel appropriate. The required concurrence of a second justice suggests to me that whilst the opinion and decision should reflect the views of the lead/presiding justice, it needs to be agreed by at least one other justice - logically any ruling being written would need to be one a second justice is willing to support, so consultation during that process makes sense. Once we have a ruling that the lead justice +1 agrees to then that is "done", with the third justice standing in reserve to hear any appeal.

• Since appeals are always a possibility, I'd like us to commit to not contributing in any material way to cases in which we are not assigned, so the third Justice can avoid any and all conflicts of interest.
  

 
Can you expand on this a bit - what level of contribution/involvement do you think would bar a justice from hearing an appeal?
 

• I know we all have different philosophies about how outspoken a Justice can or should be, and how conflicts should be avoided, so I'm interested in having a discussion, just so we can have a minimum standard for the circumstances where we should ideally avoid giving political or compromising opinions.
  

 
Common sense can apply to this one; if any of us feel that another justice is nearing or has crossed a line then they should just raise that.
 

• We have to discuss assignments for the pending legal question, and I'd like to discuss the justiciability of the Singapura review request.
  

 
I'm happy to have you assign cases as Chief Justice, taking LoA's, CoI's, etc, into account.

Do you mean this?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

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

Reply

Ideally I would have the third Justice avoid any involvement in the case once it has been deemed justiciable, since they shouldn't be involved in original case considerations, but I am particularly interested in avoiding the mistakes of prior multi-member Courts, where the non-presiding Justice actively gave their opinion and signed off on rulings.

Yes, I do mean that particular appeal.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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: 05-31-2018, 04:01 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply