+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [PASSED] Frivolous cases (/thread-9007.html)
Pages:
1
2
[PASSED] Frivolous cases - Nat - 12-08-2020
Based on a question the Chief Justice raised here, it is debatable whether the Court can dismiss frivolous cases. Because of this, I propose the amendment below. It will allow the Court to dismiss cases it considers justiciable but frivolous. I have added a safeguard: the decision on a case's frivolity must be unanimous (i.e. if one Justice does not believe it to be frivolous then it cannot be dismissed for being frivolous). Anyway, I think it is a worthwhile discussion to be had. I am not too fussed about the outcome but I thought I would get the ball rolling.
Article 3, Section 2 of the Judicial Act Wrote:(2) The High Court will determine with reasonable speed whether a case is justiciable. If found justiciable, a justice will be assigned to the case, otherwise the case is unappealably dismissed.
a. Provided there is unanimous agreement, the High Court may unappealably dismiss an otherwise-justiciable case it considers to be frivolous.
RE: Frivolous cases - Seraph - 12-09-2020
It seems a perfectly reasonable addition to me and the safeguard of unanimity is a sensible one.
RE: Frivolous cases - Bleakfoot - 12-09-2020
Is the intention to grant a right of appeal to the ruling that a case is frivolous? I ask only because the paragraph above specifies that a non-justiciable case must be 'unappealably dismissed' whereas the additional paragraph does not.
To be honest I can see arguments for both sides. On the one hand, the Court should be slow to deny anyone rights of appeal. On the other, since the decision to dismiss needs to be unanimous, an appeal is pretty much doomed to fail in any event.
RE: Frivolous cases - Witchcraft and Sorcery - 12-09-2020
We didn't have this before? I think it's an excellent idea. The language in the law is good too - I agree with seraph, requiring unanimity is a good idea.
RE: Frivolous cases - Nat - 12-09-2020
(12-09-2020, 05:33 AM)Bleakfoot Wrote: Is the intention to grant a right of appeal to the ruling that a case is frivolous? I ask only because the paragraph above specifies that a non-justiciable case must be 'unappealably dismissed' whereas the additional paragraph does not.
Nice pick up! I have added the word unappealably to the proposed amendment. If anyone feels strongly against this I am open to hearing their arguments.
RE: Frivolous cases - Seraph - 12-09-2020
Could you change that to 'dismiss without appeal' or something similar. Unappealably is... unappealing.
RE: Frivolous cases - Nat - 12-09-2020
(12-09-2020, 06:46 PM)Seraph Wrote: Could you change that to 'dismiss without appeal' or something similar. Unappealably is... unappealing.
I can do, but unappealably is the language already in the legislation (see the main clause above). Nonetheless, while I personally don't think a change in the phrase is needed, I am happy to work on better wording for both the existing clause and the proposed amendment if others feel it important to do.
RE: Frivolous cases - Nat - 12-12-2020
I move this proposal go to vote
(I am happy to discuss a change in wording if desired, but there seems to be no push for it at present)
RE: Frivolous cases - Seraph - 12-13-2020
Second.
RE: Frivolous cases - Purple Hyacinth - 12-14-2020
This has been brought to vote here