| [LEGAL QUESTION] Election of the Local Council |
I wanted to make sure an appeal was noted. I hope to make a more detailed explanation later tonight, when I get to the hotel.
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
In compliance with Article 5, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Charter, I am filing a petition of appeal before the non-presiding justice on the matter of HCLQ1515, related to the requirements for membership of the Local Council. I am submitting an appeal due to the following portions of the ruling, which I will quote as follows:
In reaching this decision we are mindful that it was the intention of the Assembly to create a body (the Local Council) that has representatives based on the qualification criteria of residency in The South Pacific rather than citizenship. Therefore, the Court also recommends: 1.) That the Assembly, as a matter of urgency, should seek to ratify an amendment to Article 2.11 of The Charter to exclude the Local Council from the citizenship requirement. 2.) That the Assembly should ratify legislation to reinstate Article 8.1.1 of The Charter upon passage of the previous recommendation. I agree with the Court that it was the obvious intent of the Assembly to create a body representative of the gameside population. I also agree with the believe that the Assembly will most likely wish to correct the contradiction solved in this ruling in such a way that non-citizens are once again able to run for the Local Council. However, I disagree with the willingness of the Court to provide its own opinion on the matter, since that violates the ideological independence of our judiciary through a dangerous politisation. It is not the role of the Court to decide that it would be desirable to reinstate the voided provision, nor would it be its job to decide that it would not be desirable. As is the tradition of every judiciary throughout NationStates, the role of the High Court is to deliver justice fairly and without any considerations that are not based on what the law says. When the Court suggested that the Assembly reinstate the voided provision, it made a political decision that was beyond its mandate to answer the legal question and in no way contributed to clarifying the same. I will refer to Article 1, Section 1d of the Rules and Procedures of the High Court, which explains one of qualities that all Justices must keep: Resilience - At times when it is necessary to pass a ruling that may create disharmony in the greater community, Justices and the Court may face backlash and criticism for the discharge of our duties. It is necessary therefore that the Court limit itself to resolving the issue at hand, regardless of how politically desirable it might be to keep the voided provision. I seem to keep repeating this, but I only do it due to its importance: it is not the job of the Court to provide political solutions, its realm is the judicial one. Once the judicial issue was solved, the Court had done its job and should have issued its ruling. Any further recommendations, while undoubtedly well-intended and most likely correct in their workability, should be discussed by the political institution of the Assembly, where such matters belong. I want to close this petition of appeal by reiterating my respect for the institution of the High Court. I believe it fulfills an important role for the South Pacific, and it is precisely due to this belief that I hope the referred section of HCLQ1515 will be removed from the official text, since it tarnishes what was otherwise a very sound ruling and a notable contribution to an otherwise remarkable Court. 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
If the Court will entertain an interjection from a former Justice, being also the main person who drafted the set of Rules and Procedures that Kris had quoted above, I will have to share Kris' opinion here. While the Court has, in the past, suggested that the Assembly take action in clarifying ambiguous legal provisions, the Court has never made explicit suggestions as to what actions exactly the Assembly should undertake, much less recommend that the Assembly reinstate a provision that had been stricken down.
To do so will be an infringement upon the sovereignty of both the Assembly and the Courts. It was, and is, in my belief in drafting these Procedures, that the Court shall remain a sovereign entity of the South Pacific, and not be subjected to political interference, both internally and externally. Resilience had been included as one of the values, as it is believed that the Court should enjoy independence in issuing its decisions, acting in the best interests of the community in accordance with current legal provisions, despite the unpopularity of the decisions at times. However, I believe that in this case, the Court had overstepped its authority, and would urge the Court to revise its ruling.
Both objections are noted and will be taken into account during my deliberation of th is appeal. If there are no further objections to this ruling, I will issue my decision in the next 24 hours.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
I'm not going to file a legal brief here, but this is pandemonium. The fact that Kris got the ruling is wants, but doesn't like the way the justices worded it is ridiculous.
Frankly, there's not even anything for Apad to hear, other than whether or not there should be the concluding sentences. The court was clearly explaining what could be done to achieve the intentions the Assembly has previously made clear. There should be nothing wrong with that.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
You think my reasoning has no merit. We get it. If you don't have anything to contribute, though, you shouldn't clutter the courtroom with useless posting.
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 (07-29-2015, 11:29 PM)Apad Wrote:
Apad
King of Haldilwe
I formally request that all threads related to the discussion of the original and appeal rulings be released to the public.
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
For the record, the Sunshine Provision doesn't cover the High Court and
Article 5.1.4 of The Charter Wrote:4. The non-presiding justice is the final court of appeal; its verdict cannot be further contested.
I am well aware of the law. I helped write some of them.
I will be blunt. I don't trust this Court to have done an honest job with the handling of this legal question, based on how it has responded to those who have questioned the contents of the ruling, and I wish to see for myself that proper judicial process was followed. 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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |