| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [1913] Legality of Plea Bargains |
|
Your honourable justices,
The Judicial Act currently notes that at Article 5, section 3 "The verdict shall be guilty if and only if the accused admitted guilt or the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred." Article 6 of the Judicial Act relates to Sentencing. "(1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction. (2) The sentencing case shall be on hold if an appeal for the conviction has been filed, for the duration of that appeal. If the original conviction is overturned, the sentencing case is automatically dismissed." Article 2 of The Criminal Code sets out punishments of sentences If a respondent pleads guilty to an offence, (1) Does the Court have the ability, under the letter of the law, to enter into (or ratify) plea bargains for reduced sentences upon an early admission of guilt or an acceptance of guilt? Regardless of the respondents plea, (2) does the Court have the power to approach a respondent to seek a change his plea? I thank the Court for it's time.
High Court of the South Pacific Notice of Reception | 1913.NR This submission has been received and has been assigned the following naming information:
Docket File Number: 1913 Reference Name: Legality of Plea Bargains Questions:
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
Nat's explainaton of te necessity of a ruling in this matter
It is important that the Court hears this case. The basis of sentencing North Prarie in HCCC 1902 is reliant upon the legal answers to the questions posed in this case. Given the Court is relying upon an ability to extend its powers beyond that which is current practice and that which is explicitly written in the law (as opposed to inferred from it), it is important that the Court consider submissions and come to a complete conclusion with full reasons stated. Otherwise, the Court would not be publicly hearing arguments opposing their initial interpretation on the expansion of its powers, which may result in errors of reasoning or may threaten the public standing of the Court as an impartial and well-considered legal body. While I am confident that the Court arrived at its decision in a fair, impartial, and well-reasoned manner, it is paramount that this is demonstrated through accepting this case, considering the arguments, and providing a comprehensive ruling. In essence, this case offers an important check and balance on the Court's ability to rule on its own powers and, as such, should be heard.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
![[Image: BYEo2lg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BYEo2lg.png) Determination of Justiciability Legality of Plea Bargains | 1913.DJ Whereas Beepee has petitioned this Court to interpret the law with the following questions:
Does the Court have the ability, under the letter of the law, to enter into (or ratify) plea bargains for reduced sentences upon an early admission of guilt or an acceptance of guilt?
Does the Court have the power to approach a respondent to seek a change his plea? Whereas this Court has reviewed the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.
It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:
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
My concern with plea bargains announced without any public background or discussion is that it smacks of a secret court proceeding and can invite problems down the road.
What transparency safeguards and due process procedures does the Court have in place around plea bargains? Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services
How can one plea bargain for crimes other than Treason or Conduct Violations as those are the only two crimes listed in the Criminal Code that have required sentences. All other sentences are to be determined by the Judiciary and must be proportionate to the offense.
Second question, and the one I have more of a problem with, How can one plea bargain for a crime in which they have not been formally charged? Example: the reason we are having this discussion. North Prarie was charged with bribery yet his plea bargain was for contempt of court. A charge that was never mentioned until he himself brought it up. EDIT: Obvious Grammatical Errors
Your Honourable Justices,
I am pleased to offer to the Justices an amicus brief on the question of "Legality of Plea Bargains" Questions: I raised the questions of pleas, in response to the case of Nakari v. Concrete Slab and North Prarie. The questions being: 1. Does the Court have the ability, under the letter of the law, to enter into (or ratify) plea bargains for reduced sentences upon an early admission of guilt or an acceptance of guilt? 2. Does the Court have the power to approach a respondent to seek a change his plea? Consideration: To aide the Honourable Justices consideration of the questions, I lead the Honourable Justices first to our Judicial Act. Our Judicial Act establishes the operational principles and procedures for Court Cases. The Judicial Act clearly states that at Article 2(1)(a), Justices must rule on the letter of the law. However, I have been unable to find any mention of pleas or plea bargains in Article 3 - Case Procedure, or under Article 6 - Sentencing. Indeed, in a review of all existing legislation, I can find no mention of plea bargains within the laws of the South Pacific. If, under Article 2(1)(a), the Justices must rule on the letter of the law, I would lead Justices to find that it must be highly unlikely a Justice find that pleas are a part of the Court Process. Further, if they are not part of the Court Process they cannot form part of the consideration during a criminal case, for example. In particular, the lack of mention of plea bargaining powers and the lack of the ability of the Court to assist in the creation, formation or consideration of suitability of such as part of the determination of the case. I also refer the justices to Article 5 : Criminal Cases of the Judicial Act. Clause 3 of Article 5 states a "verdict shall be guilty if and only if the accused admitted guilt (...)". I strongly suggest to the Honourable Justices that to deliver during a case, before a verdict has been issued, regardless of an admission of guilt, matters of a plea bargain, would be inappropriate. However, I would respectfully suggest that such a bargain could be lodged with the Court, jointly by a respondent and claimant, and held in abeyance until the verdict of the case has been issued and the could be considered by the Justice in the sentencing hearing. However, with no mention of plea bargains in the sentencing the sentencing process, it raises questions as to whether a Justice, on behalf of the Court, can consider a joint motion by the claimant and respondent as part of a sentencing decision. If I lead the Justices to the Criminal Code Article 2 - Punishments, sets punishments on guilty verdicts of treason, conduct violations and other crimes and I highlight, in particular, the Criminal Codes punishment for Other Crimes, which states "If found guilty of any other crime listed above, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense." It can be argued that as 'Justices determine the sentence', for a claimant and respondent to suggest a sentence through a joint sentencing plea agreement would be technically acceptable, and, I would suggest the Justices might find that such a matter could consider such a plea bargain between the parties, but would lead that this cannot and should not be the sole determining factor. It is unclear when considering Article 2(1)(a) of the Judicial Act, whether this would be an appropriate course of action. After all, I contend, an early plea or a changed plea has no remit in the Judicial Act as regardless of plea or admission, us must the Judicial Act, Clause 3 of Article 5 issue a verdict. Further, there is no legislative or procedural merit therefore in a plea, for cost benefit. In Response to Question Part 1: I would hope to have led Justices to find that under the current law, with no mention of pleas or plea bargaining, the Courts would be unable to utilise plea bargains in the consideration of cases and sentencing. In Response to Question Part 2: I would hope to have led Justices to find that for a Justice or the Court to lead a respondent to a change of plea, for the purpose of a reduction in sentence would be out with the remit of the Court procedures as set out in the Judicial Act. I trust the brief aides the Court and the Justices in reaching a consideration on the Legality of Plea Bargains. I would be happy to answer any questions or clarify any matters the Justices have on the brief. I thank the Court for it's time.
Your Honourable Justices,
I refer to @Volaworand 's question. If it may aide the Court , I copy for Vola's benefit Article 8 of the Judicial Act which provides the Courts Process on confidentiality in Court Processes. I draw the Court and Vola's attention to Clause 1 of the above Article, which I lead is the relevant Clause. I thank the Court for it's time.
Your Honours, I present my amicus curiae brief on HCLQ1903. I am confident of my reasoning in relation to formal plea deals. I am less certain of my reasoning regarding informal plea deals; however, I thought it would provide a useful perspective for the Court to consider. I have no submission to make regarding the question of whether the High Court can approach the accused about a change of plea. I am more than happy to answer any questions the Court may have on my brief.
The Judicial Act 6.1 states: "A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted. […]" The plain reading of the law is that a sentencing case cannot commence until an indictment has been issued and a finding of guilt has been made. This is the sole plain reading and it does not produce an absurdity (it merely sets forth a non-onerous process), so it is the correct reading of the law (HCLQ1805). Hence, sentencing itself cannot occur prior to an indictment and a finding of guilt (either by admission or a guilty verdict). Therefore, the High Court could not agree to a particular sentence until after an indictment and a finding of guilt. So, the accused could enter a plea but could not be guaranteed of its outcome by the High Court. A formal plea deal would not be legal. What about an informal agreement between the accused and the High Court? The Judicial Act 3.6 states: “Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, they will analyze the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion. […]” The literal interpretation of this law is that the High Court (through the assigned Justice) will analyse the case only after they have received all necessary information and evidence. This does not produce an absurdity (it is simply a non-burdensome requirement for due process) and is the lone literal interpretation. Therefore, this reading is the correct reading (HCLQ1805). In order for the High Court to enter into and then later ratify a de facto plea deal, it would have to analyse the sentencing question prior to a sentencing case being open (since, as argued above, a sentencing case can only be opened after a finding of guilt). As submissions are permissible for any case (Judicial Act 3.4), the High Court could not be satisfied it has all the necessary information and evidence prior to the close of the sentencing case submission period. Therefore, a de facto plea deal would mean the High Court would analyse the sentencing question prior to knowing it has received all the necessary information and evidence. This would be in conflict with the Judicial Act (3.6) and, as a violation of process, would be liable to an appeal (Judicial Act 7.3).
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
(03-21-2019, 09:58 PM)Ululinguini Wrote: Second question, and the one I have more of a problem with, How can one plea bargain for a crime in which they have not been formally charged? Example: the reason we are having this discussion. North Prarie was charged with bribery yet his plea bargain was for contempt of court. A charge that was never mentioned until he himself brought it up. I was charged with Contempt and Bribery. You can see that if you look at the HC's Determination of Justaciability. Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |