Your honors,

the Criminal Code clearly defines Espionage to include things such as distributing confidential information for one's own benefit.

The "Roa & The Cabinet" Group DM was established on July 4, 2018 as a communication medium between Roavin and the Cabinet. As can be expected, confidential information was disclosed in that Group DM, and since it was the "formal" communication point between Roavin and the Cabinet, disclosure of information revealed there is subject to written approval of the Cabinet as per Criminal Code 1.3.c.

Islands of Unity prepared the following screenshot which originated from that Group DM:


On October 11 at 12:48 MDT, Islands of Unity sent this screenshot to Unplannedland, and again at 3:45am to Pax Dracon, in order to campaign against Roavin for Minister of Military Affairs. The use of this information coming from a confidential channel for political purposes, ostensibly without express written consent of the Cabinet as a unit, for political campaigning demonstrates intent of espionage.

At 4:28 MDT, Islands of Unity revealed the screenshot in the "Roa & The Cabinet" group DM, stating that he considered it "appropriate for people to know of this response". Roavin, in an effort to get ahead of the story in his campaign as Minister of Military Affairs, posted a snippet in his campaign at 4:30 MDT. As this constitutes use for his own political campaign, ostensibly without written express consent of the Cabinet as a unit, this, too, demonstates intent of espionage.

An album with various screenshots can be found here.

Does the Court find probable cause that Roavin and Islands of Unity have committed Espionage for purposes of indicting them?

Reply

Your honors,

I would like to point out that this group is not in fact an official area of cabinet discussion, and is in fact a private group hosted by a private citizen. 

If this was in fact a governmental group with the intent of communication between a private citizen and the cabinet as Roavin claims, then that would indicate that the roster and members of the group would be established and unable to be changed or affected by one of the members of that group. However I would like to point out that Roavin does in fact have and express control over which cabinet members he wants to be in the group; I was excluded from this group on the wishes of the private citizen who hosts the group from the beginning of my term until only a short time ago. 

If this was an actual government group I would have been included from the first day of my term, and the private owner of the group would have no control over which members of the cabinet are present in the group. This group is owned by a private citizen, and it behaves like a private group. 

Given these facts, I would like to contest that there has been no crime committed by either party, as there is no protection of private conversation.

Reply

Finding of Probable Cause

Whereas Roavin has requested this Court to indict Islands of Unity and Roavin through the following request:

Does the Court find probable cause that Roavin and Islands of Unity have committed Espionage for purposes of indicting them?

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article V, Section 1 of the Judicial Act to indict individuals when it finds probable cause that they may have committed a crime, as codified in the Criminal Code.

It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:

1. The Court does not find probable cause that Islands of Unity and Roavin may have commmitted Espionage.
   
2. The Court may provide an opinion on its reasons for issuing this determination, at the request of the complainant, or any party so authorised by him.

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

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 would like to ask the court to provide it's opinion on it's reasoning for issuing it's determination.

Reply

In-Chambers Opinion

This Court ruled, with respect to the charge that Roavin and Islands of Unity may have committed espionage, that there was a lack of probable cause that such was the case. In so ruling, the Court considered two issues: whether the charge was being filed in good faith -that is, whether there was a genuine concern that a crime was committed-, and whether there was a reasonable argument to be made that the actions committed by the two individuals accused constituted espionage.

The Justices are no strangers to the state of relations between Roavin and Islands of Unity. While all three are expected to be neutral in their judicial dealings, this does not extend to neutrality in their knowledge. The Court is aware that, at least at the time of filing, both individuals could not be described as being on friendly terms, and felt that there was a chance that the charge was being used as an extension of their dispute. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of the Coalition, entrusted with fairly interpreting the laws and presiding over criminal cases. Its duties do not involve, however, being an instrument for one party in a dispute to affect the other. In fact, the Court has little patience for such antics, and has little intention of being used in such a way.

In addition to the above, the Court had to consider whether a reasonable argument for espionage could conceivably be made, and concluded that, at this stage, it could not. There is no law or judicial ruling that clearly designates the "Roa & The Cabinet" group chat as a formal government venue, hence there was no clear path for Roavin to make a case that the Criminal Code applied to this case. While circumstances could change, at the time of filing, circumstances had not changed, and therefore, there was no probable cause to be found.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

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