(03-16-2019, 05:02 PM)North Prarie Wrote: Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into with the High Court of the South Pacific, I hereby plead guilty to the offense of Contempt of Court. 

I apologize and am sincerely sorry for my actions.

Wait, what? Where exactly does the court get the power to offer plea agreements?

(03-16-2019, 09:50 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(03-16-2019, 05:02 PM)North Prarie Wrote: Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into with the High Court of the South Pacific, I hereby plead guilty to the offense of Contempt of Court. 

I apologize and am sincerely sorry for my actions.

Wait, what? Where exactly does the court get the power to offer plea agreements? 

Has this happened before?

(03-16-2019, 09:50 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(03-16-2019, 05:02 PM)North Prarie Wrote: Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into with the High Court of the South Pacific, I hereby plead guilty to the offense of Contempt of Court. 

I apologize and am sincerely sorry for my actions.

Wait, what? Where exactly does the court get the power to offer plea agreements?

We concluded that it was a logical extension of our power to determine guilt and issue sentence; that would seem to contain the ability to offer a reduced sentence or set of charges in return for a formal guilty plea. In this particular case North Prarie had already, to our interpretation, admitted fault whilst arguing mitigation. We found this argument - that he had broken the law but without full cognisance of what he was doing - persuasive, and as such approached North Prarie about changing his plea.

Our remit is to investigate a matter, determine what occurred, and ensure restitution. I believe that in this case that was best served by this outcome.

In the absence of any law authorizing plea agreements, why wouldn’t the Court just acknowledge that North Prairie admits guilt, declare him guilty in an official ruling, and then deliver whatever punishment?

Not sure I’m comfortable with the court deciding it has the power to short-cut the process laid out in our procedural laws and reach special agreements with the parties.

... do we have a process for pleading? Like, is that even set out or is it just assumed both people are going to plea not guilty?

I don't have an issue with what was done or even the logic used to get to that conclusion — and in fact, I think getting people to see the error of their ways is more productive that sentencing them and what not. But, I think such process should be codified.
(Especially, since the typical use of the term plea deal -- at least in the American context -- is between the prosecutor and the defendant; not the court.)

(03-17-2019, 08:53 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: ... do we have a process for pleading? Like, is that even set out or is it just assumed both people are going to plea not guilty?

Judicial Act Wrote: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.

(03-17-2019, 10:09 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(03-17-2019, 08:53 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: ... do we have a process for pleading? Like, is that even set out or is it just assumed both people are going to plea not guilty?

Judicial Act Wrote: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.

So then, yes, the baked in assumption is that everyone is going to plead not guilty.

In a way. The assumption is that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Your honourable justices,

I refer to the honourable justices, commentary above and that of the respondent, North Prarie (included as quote below)

(03-16-2019, 10:50 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(03-16-2019, 09:50 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(03-16-2019, 05:02 PM)North Prarie Wrote: Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into with the High Court of the South Pacific, I hereby plead guilty to the offense of Contempt of Court. 

I apologize and am sincerely sorry for my actions.

Wait, what? Where exactly does the court get the power to offer plea agreements?

We concluded that it was a logical extension of our power to determine guilt and issue sentence; that would seem to contain the ability to offer a reduced sentence or set of charges in return for a formal guilty plea. In this particular case North Prarie had already, to our interpretation, admitted fault whilst arguing mitigation. We found this argument - that he had broken the law but without full cognisance of what he was doing - persuasive, and as such approached North Prarie about changing his plea.

Our remit is to investigate a matter, determine what occurred, and ensure restitution. I believe that in this case that was best served by this outcome.

Article 8: Confidentiality of the Judicial Act states, at Clause 1, by default material... shall be submitted in a public venue. Article 8 is included in the spoiler. The material cannot, surely, be considered personal and Confidential and therefore be kept secret.

Will the court please consider if the plea bargain details between the respondent and the Court can be published?

I thank the court for it's time.

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [1902.HC] NAKARI V. NORTH PRARIE AND CONCRETE SLAB SUBMISSION 12 FEBRUARY 2019 | PROBABLE CAUSE 12 FEBRUARY 2019 | VERDICT 23 OCTOBER 2020 CHARGE Bribery, Contempt of Court. SUMMARY OF THE VERDICT It is the finding of the Court that North Prarie did not exhibit any clear acts or intent that would constitute bribery or contempt of court, but Concrete Slab did exhibit actions that, when considered alongside a prior record of similar behaviour, does suggest that it is more likely than not that they engaged in bribery and contempt of court; therefore, on both charges the Court finds North Prarie not guilty and Concrete Slab guilty. CHIEF JUDGE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE VERDICT, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE BELSCHAFT. On the matter of the charges of bribery and contempt of Court against North Prarie and Concrete Slab, it is the finding of the Court that the evidence presented and the records of North Prarie (hereafter Prarie) and Concrete Slab (hereafter Slab) show that, while North Prarie may have innocently and unknowingly engaged in a reprehensible exchange, Slab did have a record of unlawful behaviour that detract from any benefit of the doubt; consequently, Prarie is found not guilty of bribery and contempt of court, but Concrete Slab is found guilty of both charges. Prarie and Slab had a private conversation on 11 February 2019 about Slab's vote in the then-ongoing election for Minister of Foreign Affairs. Prarie asked what they could do to earn their vote, to which Slab responded "Well... you have a second chance...You know I'm not 'corrupt' right?"[1]. This exchange took place just as the Court as also considering [1901.HC] New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab, a criminal complaint where Slab was facing a charge of corruption. Prarie responded that they did know that; shortly after Slab changed their vote to Prarie. The above conversation is troubling because of two reasons. The first is that it shows Slab suggesting, however vaguely, that Prarie not testify in 1901.HC in exchange for a vote in the election. This is an offer of undue support in exchange for behaviour or omission that may not have otherwise been considered. The second is that, not only was the exchange that Slab proposed undue, but it also involved an obstruction of the work conducted by the High Court, aimed at preventing this bench from reaching a fair result. Taken on their own, these two reasons offer a mixed context. There are two factors to consider, however, each pertaining to each accused party. Prarie lacked a criminal record at the time of the incident, being a legislator in good standing whose participation in the proposed exchange was ambiguous at best. While the Criminal Code does say that bribery "receiving undue support"[2], it would be an absurd to determine guilty on someone who may have been an unknowing, if naïve, recipient of undue support. Contempt of court requires a deliberate intent[3], something that is lacking in Prarie's case: Prarie's expressed intent was to secure a vote, and the exchange offered by Slab was ambiguous enough that Prarie's response did not actually confirm a commitment to any course of action such as obstructing the work of the Court. Slab, on the other hand, had an evolving criminal record owing to their actions as a Local Councillor. They did offer undue support in exchange for a vote, support that related to a then-ongoing criminal proceeding. While the Court extends the benefit of the doubt to Prarie, assuming a certain degree of naïveté, the same benefit cannot be extended to Slab, who already had a history of undue behaviour and had an interest in avoiding further judicial action on their person. This aggravates what was an ambiguous exchange and turns it into an attempt not only to offer undue support, but also to obstruct the work of the Court. Considering the available evidence, the records of both Prarie and Slab, and the context surrounding the aforementioned conversation, the Court finds North Prarie not guilty of the crimes of bribery and contempt of court, and it finds Concrete Slab guilty of the crimes of bribery and contempt of court. It is so ordered. REFERENCES [1] North Prarie (2020). [1902.HC.AC.01] RE: Criminal Complaint Against North Prarie and Concrete Slab. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6856-post-1...#pid182431 [2] Criminal Code; Article 1, Section 11 (2020). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. [3] Criminal Code; Article 1, Section 5 (2020). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. 1902.HC.V | Issued 23 October 2020