Well, Frak was banned from LWU and DoS when I got citizenship. Can I be accused of a crime that might have been committed before I was a citizen?

Also, is Frak a declared Security Threat in TSP? I don't even know.

Furthermore, LWU never aided Frak in anything having to do with TSP, and no evidence even exists to support that idea. Was he in the group? Sure. However, Belschaft is in TNP, does that mean we start accusing Tomb of treason for allowing Bel citizenship there?

I do have a legal question for the Court, however. Did these current laws I am being accused of breaking exist, as they are written now, in 2011? If not, can I still be charged for something that wasn't a crime back then? I honestly don't know TSP law well enough to know if you can be charged with a crime ex post facto.

Yes. I consider that matter to be completely separate from this question.

It is important to establish if TSP law makers can make an action illegal and then charge an individual for committing said action before it was made illegal. An ex de facto crime, if you will.

And I am curious to know if we can charge people for alleged crimes they might have committed while not a TSP Citizen or Resident. Does TSP Law cover a Citizen or Resident's entire history, to include time periods when they were not a Citizen or Resident?

Well, I think that since the court system lacked many things such as procedures and even a complete list of crimes why isn't it possible to retroactively make something a crime when the criminal code was lacking? It isn't the justices that are lacking but the fact that TSP's battle to have a strong and working judicial system has been an uphill battle for over 2 years with our courts at different times being plagued by different problems.

(03-14-2015, 12:10 PM)Escade Wrote: Well, I think that since the court system lacked many things such as procedures and even a complete list of crimes why isn't it possible to retroactively make something a crime when the criminal code was lacking?

Because to make something illegal after the fact is highly dangerous and encourages abuses of power. That's why ex de facto laws are near universally illegal in not only Real Life, but most of the other Feeders and Sinkers.

There is no reason to create a law and then to use that law to criminally convict an individual for committing a once legal action that occurred prior to the passage of the law, but is now illegal. Well, actually, there are reasons, but they're all unethical: mostly corruption of power, abuse of the system, personal grudges, and general spite. Do we really want our Justice System to devolve into a sort of weapon for the politically strong to use against the weak?

(03-14-2015, 12:10 PM)Escade Wrote: It isn't the justices that are lacking but the fact that TSP's battle to have a strong and working judicial system has been an uphill battle for over 2 years with our courts at different times being plagued by different problems.

Having a dysfunctional court system in the past doesn't make injustice excusable now.

---

---

---

---

---

---

Well, Frak was banned from LWU and DoS when I got citizenship. Can I be accused of a crime that might have been committed before I was a citizen?

Also, is Frak a declared Security Threat in TSP? I don't even know.

Furthermore, LWU never aided Frak in anything having to do with TSP, and no evidence even exists to support that idea. Was he in the group? Sure. However, Belschaft is in TNP, does that mean we start accusing Tomb of treason for allowing Bel citizenship there?

I do have a legal question for the Court, however. Did these current laws I am being accused of breaking exist, as they are written now, in 2011? If not, can I still be charged for something that wasn't a crime back then? I honestly don't know TSP law well enough to know if you can be charged with a crime ex post facto.

---

---

---

---

After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Wolf.

It is in the opinion of the High Court that is unable to rule on the basis of what is written in law with regards to whether ex post facto law applies in the South Pacific, due to the lack of legal provisions clarifying the matter. 

Notwithstanding the lack of legal provisions, it is in the opinion of all Court Justices participating in this ruling that ex post facto law should not apply in the South Pacific and there should further be a statute of limitations to clarify the length of time for which an individual is liable for an offence, particularly so if the penalty for the offence has been modified in between the time of the offence and the time of sentencing.

Hence, the High Court strongly urges the Assembly to enact provisions clarifying this matter.

---

Note: In light of the lack of legal provisions in South Pacific law, the Court has used rulings on ex post facto law in real-world jurisdictions as the primary terms of reference to arrive at the following conclusions:

• That crimes are not permitted to apply retroactively and there are legal and constitutional protections to that effect
  
• If the penalty for an offence has been modified between the time of the offence and time of sentencing, the lesser penalty should apply (in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
  

The legal opinion above includes recommendations by the Court Justices after analysing relevant ex post facto provisions in real-world jurisdictions. These recommendations do not have any legal effect on South Pacific law unless enacted through legislation by the Assembly and are not representative of a judgement rendered by the High Court.