Hi.

You know that thing that TSP does every once in a while and then immediately wants to do again?

Yeah let's stop that cycle now with a healthy dose of near-perfection

I have a draft here for a new Judicial Act, to replace the old Judiciary Act and Court Procedures Act in their entirety. It's a ground-up rewrite and rethinking of the Court. Here are the features:

It's simple! There is no convoluted trial system, no separate appeals mechanism full of holes, or any of that sort. Everything that the court handles goes through one unified procedure, similar to Legal Questions. The court is granted significant discretion in effectively determing how a particular case is best handled. Despite containing 8 separate articles, it's substantially shorter and simpler than what preceeds it.

It's non-adversarial! It's not about plaintiff vs. defendant, with the court just sitting as idle arbiter and judge of what is presented - rather, it's about getting to the truth, and the court should always strive to find out the truth and rule based upon that. A non-adversarial system allows this.

Leave the Pool for swimming! Gone is the weird Permanent Justice and Pool Justice model that nobody likes. Instead, we just have the High Court, led by a firewalled chief justice and aided by several non-firewalled associate justices. With this model, we can adds sensible checks as needed without blocking people from office needlessly.

TIL likes it! It's non-adversarial, it does not block too many people from office, and it's simple. This is what TIL wants in court reform, and this is what this bill provides.

APC likes it! Procedurally solid, minimizing loop-holes, while ensuring sensible checks are in place. This is what APC wants in court reform, and this is what this bill provides.

Standards of Evidence! To finally put to rest the frequent debate of "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "probable cause" vs "preponderance of the evidence" vs ......

Reduces fear of the court! How often in the past two years have things not gone before the court because of convoluted procedures, the arcane applicability of legal questions, or other such matters? No more. Have a question, bring it to court - that can be a legal question, a criminal accusation, a request for review, or anything else. Each case will be handled with a simple but reasonable process.

...and more! Am I promising too much? You tell me.

Quote:

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

Article 1: The High Court

(1) The High Court comprises a chief justice and at least two associate justices.

(2) The chief justice operates the High Court. In case of vacancy, absence, or recusal, the associate justices shall collectively operate the High Court.

(3) The chief justice may order the recusal of any associate justice on a specific issue. The associate justices may collectively force the recusal of the chief justice on a specific issue.

(4) In case of a vacancy, the associate justices will select a willing and eligible individual amongst themselves to serve as chief justice.

(5) To appoint an associate justice, the Cabinet will consult with the High Court and present a willing and eligible individual to the Assembly for an approval vote.

(6) The Cabinet is compelled to appoint a fitting individual as per above with all deliberate speed if
a. there are less than two associate justices on the High Court,
b. the chief justice position is vacant and the associate justices cannot determine a new chief justice amongst themselves for any reason, or
c. a case cannot continue due to recusals.

Article 2: Judicial Conduct and Requirements

(1) Justices of the High Court shall
a. rule upon what is written in law, and not be influenced by prejudice based on personal bias, corruption by undue influence, or discord,
b. consider the impact of Court rulings carefully., ensuring whenever possible that no individual is empowered to exploit rulings of the Court,
c. maintain good communication with fellow Justices as well as the broader community, and
d. be reasonably inquisitorial.

(2) An associate justice must have legislator status in the South Pacific and take an oath of confidentiality and impartiality.

(3) The chief justice must fulfill the requirements to be an associate justice, and additionally may not not serve as senior or junior cabinet minister, as Chair of Assembly or deputy, or as Delegate.

Article 3: Case Procedure

(1) A case is submitted to the High Court via a public post in the High Court area by any individual authorized to submit a case of the given type. A case can be a legal question, an appeal, an indictment, or a sentencing.

(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.

(3) Any member of the South Pacific may request the recusal of the assigned justice at any time, which will be reviewed by the High Court. If granted, the High Court will assign another justice.

(4) Any member of the South Pacific may submit information, evidence, or opinions on the matter. To facilitate this, a case may not run for less than 72 hours.

(5) The assigned justice may, as necessary, request information, evidence, or opinions from any member or institution. With the approval of another justice, a member or institution may be compelled to answer such a request.

(6) Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, they will analyze the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion. Any individuals involved in the crafting of the opinion must be named within it. The opinion must be approved by another justice not recused from the case.

Article 4: Legal Questions

(1) A legal question is a case containing one or more questions seeking to receive clarification on the meaning of existing law or the applicability of law to concrete or hypothetical situations.

(2) Legal questions can be submitted by any member of the South Pacific.

(3) The opinion delivered for a legal question shall have the full force of law until appealed or the law upon which the opinion was based is significantly changed.

Article 5: Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contact through at least one reasonable means of contact and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered.

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if the accused admitted guilt or the justice has determined preponderance of the evidence that the criminal act occurred.

Article 6: 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 7: Appeals

(1) An appeal is a case for which the petitioner seeks to reverse or reevaluate a concluded case that itself is not an appeal. An appeal may be filed by any member of the South Pacific or by any non-member with a vested interest in the case.

(2) Appeals may only be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct.

(3) The assigned justice of the case being appealed is automatically recused from the appeal case.

Article 8: Confidentiality

(1) By default, material submitted for a case shall be submitted alongside the case proceedings in a public venue.

(2) Material that is confidential and may harm regional security may be submitted to the Court, provided that the Court works with the corresponding authority to redact the information that may harm regional security.

(3) Material that is of a personal nature, such as revealing personally identifiable information or would otherwise unreasonably violate personal privacy, may be provided to the Court on a confidential basis, and published in a redacted form only if a reasonable person could not deduce the identity being protected.

(what's still missing is the appropriate Charter amendment - I will do that later)

Many thanks to Glen/Sandaoguo for help with the wording on a few items plus general mentorship and inspiration.