I've had this lying around a while, and I think now is the right time to bring it out. This is a full replacement for the Court Procedures Act and the Judiciary Act, and brings with it several nifty features:

• Non-adversarial trials! FINALLY!
  
• The procedure for pool selection is much better defined
  
• Separation between the Permanent Justice and the Acting Chief Justice for purposes of recusals and such
  
• Adding Court Workers that may aid a case but must take an oath
  
• Legal Questions now need confirmation from a pool justice (concession to the APC who I had worked with a bit on this, who initially insisted on a full three-person bench for LQs as well)
  
• An almost innumerable number of loopholes and edge cases closed (and hopefully not as many opened)
  

This is part of a full judicial reform thing I have been drafting on and off for quite some time; I figured the time is right to release this part since it fixes this issue and is just better in general. Special thanks to Glen/Sandaoguo and Griffin (and maybe others I'm forgetting right now) for constructive feedback and ideas.

Here goes:

Judicial Act

Article 1: Justices
Section 1: Judicial Conduct

1. Justices of the High Court shall rule upon what is written in law, and not be influenced by prejudice based on personal bias, corruption by undue influence, or discord.
   
2. Justices of the High Court shall consider the impact of Court rulings carefully. Whenever possible, no individual should be empowered to exploit rulings of the Court.
   
3. Justices of the High Court shall maintain good communication with fellow Justices as well as the broader community.
   
4. Justices of the High Court are encouraged to be reasonably inquisitorial.
   

Section 2: Justice Requirements

1. The requirements listed herein must be met at the time of entry into, and for the duration of, active judicial duty. For these purposes, active judicial duty shall be defined as being the Permanent Justice, holding the Chief Justice role, holding an Appellate Justice role, assisting in answering a legal question, or sitting on the Bench of a court trial.
   
2. Justices in active judicial duty must have legislator status in the South Pacific.
   
3. Justices in active judicial duty may not serve as senior or junior cabinet minister, as Chair of Assembly or deputy, or as Delegate.
   
4. Justices entering active judicial duty must take an oath of confidentiality and impartiality.
   

Article 2: Personnel
Section 1: Permanent Justice

1. The Permanent Justice is the head justice of the High Court of the South Pacific.
   
2. The Permanent Justice may resign at any time, and may choose to be placed at the front of the Pool of Justices as part of their resignation.
   
3. The Permanent Justice may be recalled by the Assembly with a three-fifths vote. In this case, the outgoing Permanent Justice is not placed on the Pool of Justices
   
4. If the Permanent Justice seat is vacant, the next eligible and willing Justice from the Pool of Justices is promoted to the position.
   

Section 2: Chief Justice

1. The Chief Justice is the operational head of the High Court of the South Pacific.
   
2. Unless a surrogate is chosen, as described herein, the Permanent Justice shall assume the role of the Chief Justice. If a surrogate is placed in the Chief Justice role, the Permanent Justice shall be considered to hold the front spot of the Pool of Justices.
   
3. The Permanent Justice may appoint or dismiss a willing surrogate from the Pool of Justices as Chief Justice at will.
   
4. Should the court have judicial duties to perform and the Chief Justice remains absent for longer than can be considered reasonable, the Pool of Justices may vote with a simple majority to appoint the next eligible individual from the Pool of Justices as Chief Justice.
   

Section 3: Pool Justices

1. The Pool of Justices comprises a list of individuals deemed capable of serving as justice, ordered back to front in ascending order of seniority in the Pool of Justices.
   
2. The Pool of Justices must be posted publically and maintained by the Chief Justice or a duly appointed surrogate.
   
3. The Cabinet and, if not vacant, the Permanent Justice may at any time coordinate to nominate a willing individual to serve on the Pool of Justices. The nominee is presented to the Assembly for one week of debate, during which the Assembly may reject the nominee with a three-fourths disapproval vote. After two weeks have passed without disapproval, the nominee is placed in the back of the Pool of Justices.
   
4. Whenever a further justice is required for active court duty, the next individual on the Pool meeting the requirements shall be selected from the front of the Pool of Justices. If the list is exhausted, more Pool Justices must be nominated with all deliberate speed.
   

Section 4: Court Workers

1. The Chief Justice may appoint or dismiss court workers at will, which may aid the High Court of the South Pacific in any way the Chief Justice sees fit bound by extant laws.
   
2. Court Workers, upon entering duty, must take an oath of confidentiality.
   

Article 3: Legal Questions
Section 1: Scope

1. The High Court of the South Pacific may answer a Legal Question seeking to clarify the meaning of existing law or the applicability of law to concrete or hypothetical situations.
   
2. Legal Questions may be submitted by any member of the South Pacific to the Court.
   

Section 2: Procedure

1. The Petitioner submits the Legal Question, including by citation and reference any relevant portions of law and including any applicable evidence.
   
2. The Chief Justice may now decline the Legal Question if and only if the Chief Justice determines it is not justiciable. This ruling may not be appealed.
   
3. Any member of the South Pacific is free to submit an amicus brief before the final opinion is delivered.
   
4. After the Legal Question is accepted, the Chief Justice will analyze it and deliver an opinion with all deliberate speed. The Chief Justice may choose to cooperate with a Pool Justice or a court worker for the opinion so long as their involvement is mentioned in the Opinion.
   
5. Before delivering the Opinion, the Chief Justice must have their Opinion confirmed by a non-involved Pool Justice, which must be mentioned in the final Opinion.
   
6. After the Opinion is delivered, it may be appealed by the Petitioner or an invested party on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct. In this case, a Pool Justice shall enter active duty to serve as Appellate Justice for the purpose of either delivering a revised opinion or upholding the original opinion. The Appellate Opinion may not be appealed.
   

Article 4: Criminal Trial
Section 1: Scope

1. Any past or current member of The South Pacific may lodge a criminal complaint against another individual within the jurisdiction of the South Pacific, or have such done on their behalf by a representative.
   

Section 2: Filing Charges

1. When filing a charge, the Petitioner must include the relevant criminal law, the details of the alleged crime, and sufficient preliminary evidence.
   
2. The Chief Justice will determine with all deliberate speed whether the preliminary evidence warrants the opening of an official Criminal Case against the alleged Defendant.
   
3. A determination that the preliminary evidence is insufficient may not be appealed, but shall not be construed to deny the future filing of charges with more sufficient preliminary evidence.
   

Section 3: Bench

1. An open criminal case is overseen by a Bench, consisting of three eligible Justices.
   
2. Initially, the Bench of a criminal case consists of the Chief Justice as well as the next two eligible and willing Justices from the Pool of Justices.
   
3. The Petitioner and the Defendant may request a Justice to recuse themselves from the case at any time, which the Bench may grant at will.
   
4. A Justice may recuse themselves from the case at any time, thereby vacating their place on the bench.
   
5. In case of a vacancy on the Bench, such as due to recusement or ineligibility, the next eligible and willing Justice from the Pool of Justices is automatically nominated to fill the vacancy. Trial proceedings are halted while a vacancy exists.
   

Section 4: Trial

1. Upon determination that the preliminary evidence is sufficient, the Bench will open the criminal case.
   
2. The Defendant will be notified and is granted a reasonable time frame no less than 72 hours to confirm receipt of knowledge that a case has been opened against them. If the Defendant fails to confirm, the Bench will declare the Defendant to be tried in absentia, voiding all rights of the Defendant to self-defense.
   
3. The Bench will be responsible for gathering all necessary and relevant evidence, questioning witnesses, seeking expert testimony, and analyzing all materials before delivering a Verdict.
   
4. If the Defendant is not being tried in absentia, they must be afforded the right to submit their defense and provide exonerating evidence. The Defendant must submit their defense within the timeframe given by the Justices, which shall not be less than 48 hours.
   
5. The Bench shall strive to conclude a Criminal Case within two weeks.
   
6. If a Verdict of guilty is reached, the Bench shall determine an appropriate sentence, if one is not explicitly prescribed by law.
   

Section 5: Appeal

1. The Verdict delivered by the Bench may be appealed on grounds of violation of procedural due process, judicial misconduct, or submission of new potentially exonerating evidence. Sentences may not be appealed, unless the sentence violates or contradicts law.
   
2. Upon petition by the Convicted for appeal, an appellate Justice from the Pool of Justices will deliberate the validity of the appeal.
   
3. If new potentially exonerating evidence is submitted, the appellate Justice will analyze the new evidence and determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants a reversal of the guilty Verdict.
   
4. If the appellate Justice determines that procedural due process or judicial misconduct occurred, they shall deliver an Order for re-trial.
   
5. In cases of judicial misconduct only, those Justices found to have engaged in misconduct shall be recused from a re-trial.
   
6. If a sentence is found to be in violation or contradiction of the law, the appellate Justice shall issue a new sentence conforming to the law.
   

Reply

Cool. It clears up most of the stuff people have complained about. Seems alright.

John Hills- President of Ausstan

Reply

This needs to be reformatted for compliance with the Law Standards Act, @Roavin. I would be happy to help with that if needed.

I will take a better look at this and offer more substantive comment within the next day or two.

Reply

I haven't had a chance to review, but I'll post a few of my earlier comments:
1. I'm opposed to the seconds on a Legal Question. They will improve little. Even in the three Justice days it was largely mindless approving whoever wrote a draft first with virtually no revision. With two Justices you'll get mostly either already agreed and approved, or two contradictory opinions and stalemate.
2. Legal Question appeals. The procedure we have now is basically non-existent and this is still less than that. We need a how and what they do. For a simple example, currently they can either uphold the verdict or restart everything. It might be worth adding a third option to simply amend rather than redoing everything.
3. I'm opposed to voting on pool justices. The pool is basically a non-position and it only politicizes the process. The names already require the approval of the Cabinet and Justice so it's not like it is done by a shadow cabal or anything. If my misadventures in Cabinet communication and some poorly qualified existing pool justices are any indication though I am absolutely open to a new process.
4. "Seniority". Right now it's undefined what happens when two or more justices are added at the same time. Even now the current roster was all appointed at the same time so by current definitions the order is technically at will. I think there is also merit in a manually set order though, allowing the more qualified names to always be called first. For accountability require the order to have been set prior to the start of the case. Also for general accountability make is so records of changes to roster or order are required to be publicly listed.
5. Removing pool justices. There's no comment on this, and as I want to redo the current list it leaves some ambiguity in my ability to do so. I think the procedure should be largely the same as adding, currently by Cabinet and Justice. Given the trust involved it should be easier to remove names than add them, maybe even by either party supporting their removal. I'm also open to recalling from the pool, preferably with additional rules to prevent immediate reappointment.
6. The most controversial: removing legislator requirements for the Court. There is a fundamental contradiction in what TSP wants from Judicial candidates. The region wants a candidate completely uninvolved in regional politics, yet we require them to stay involved in regional with the legislator requirements for Permanent and pool Justices. (Abstaining on everything is an option, but what's the point of voting then?) Removing this requirement (still require residency or such) would also broaden the available candidates and allow more individuals who are objective and qualified to be involved with our Judiciary.

Reply

"Objective" is not the same as "knowledgeable." And if you're not here, then you aren't knowledgeable about our laws or their legislative histories.

Reply

"Objective" is not the same as "knowledgeable." And if you're not here, then you aren't knowledgeable about our laws or their legislative histories.

The suggestion was based more on my perception of the region than my personal feelings. The region has seemed to want people disconnected from regional politics, something fundamentally contradictory to the legislator requirements.

Reply

No, "the region" doesn't want that at all. Nobody knows what "the region" wants. A handful of people on Discord don't want me or Belschaft or Roavin or whoever as a judge on cases they care about, because it's all good and fun until it's somebody who really knows what's going on and hasn't always been your friend. Let's talk about TSP like it's the game that it is.

Either we have people who actually know things. Or we have "objective" people who don't even play the game. Why not outsource this to another region altogether, for ultimate objectivity, if we're going to measure that by how distant you are from TSP's forums?

Reply

This needs to be reformatted for compliance with the Law Standards Act, @Roavin. I would be happy to help with that if needed.

Ah yes, thank you for pointing it out again. I'll do the reformatting when I write up the next iteration, should be easy.

1. I'm opposed to the seconds on a Legal Question. They will improve little. Even in the three Justice days it was largely mindless approving whoever wrote a draft first with virtually no revision. With two Justices you'll get mostly either already agreed and approved, or two contradictory opinions and stalemate.

Well first, this was the tradeoff made with APC. They wanted a full three-Justice bench for LQs as well, though I know you and I both agree that's not a good idea. The language is deliberately written such that any pool justice can do, so in practice you can just look who's online in Discord, say "hey can you look over and sign off", and be done with it. If there are disagreements, it's worth having the discussion, and if all else fails the PJ can just ask another pool justice >_>

2. Legal Question appeals. The procedure we have now is basically non-existent and this is still less than that. We need a how and what they do. For a simple example, currently they can either uphold the verdict or restart everything. It might be worth adding a third option to simply amend rather than redoing everything.

Erm ... it's pretty much the same procedure, just rephrased better.

Old:

(7)The Opinion may only be appealed on grounds of violation of procedural due process, a contradiction of law, or judicial misconduct.

(8) If the Petitioner files an appeal, an appellate Justice from the Pool of Justices will deliberate the validity of the appeal and decide to rehear the case or uphold the original Opinion.

(9) The Opinion on an appeal is final and may not be further appealed, except in cases of extreme judicial misconduct.


New:

6. After the Opinion is delivered, it may be appealed by the Petitioner or an invested party on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct. In this case, a Pool Justice shall enter active duty to serve as Appellate Justice for the purpose of either delivering a revised opinion or upholding the original opinion. The Appellate Opinion may not be appealed.


Also, what's missing from the procedure, in your opinion?

3. I'm opposed to voting on pool justices. The pool is basically a non-position and it only politicizes the process. The names already require the approval of the Cabinet and Justice so it's not like it is done by a shadow cabal or anything. If my misadventures in Cabinet communication and some poorly qualified existing pool justices are any indication though I am absolutely open to a new process.

It's not a direct vote, but rather it's the disapproval vote that the old law has for the Permanent Justice. Rationale: In this draft, the Permanent Justice is no longer appointed+presented for a disapproval vote directly, as it is now, but rather the next Permanent Justice is drawn from the Pool when needed. Therefore, that disapproval vote was moved from the Permanent Justice to the Pool Justices.

I'm ambivalent about it though. If people prefer it gone, fine with me.

4. "Seniority". Right now it's undefined what happens when two or more justices are added at the same time. Even now the current roster was all appointed at the same time so by current definitions the order is technically at will. I think there is also merit in a manually set order though, allowing the more qualified names to always be called first. For accountability require the order to have been set prior to the start of the case. Also for general accountability make is so records of changes to roster or order are required to be publicly listed.

When we picked a batch of pool justices during my MoRA term, we decided on the order. The procedural justification was that the pool justices we picked are considered to have been placed on the pool in the order we stated, such that they would be selected again from the pool in that order as well. I don't see an issue with "adding at the same time", therefore.

Regarding seniority, "seniority on the pool" is what is meant. I'll clarify that a bit more in the next iteration.

Now, manually adjusting the order could be done, sure. Should that be subject to a cabinet+PJ discussion as well, just as pool justice nominations? If people like this idea, I'll see if I can whip up some language for that in the next iteration.

5. Removing pool justices. There's no comment on this, and as I want to redo the current list it leaves some ambiguity in my ability to do so. I think the procedure should be largely the same as adding, currently by Cabinet and Justice. Given the trust involved it should be easier to remove names than add them, maybe even by either party supporting their removal. I'm also open to recalling from the pool, preferably with additional rules to prevent immediate reappointment.

We didn't have that before either - good point, though. I'll add that in the next iteration.

6. The most controversial: removing legislator requirements for the Court. There is a fundamental contradiction in what TSP wants from Judicial candidates. The region wants a candidate completely uninvolved in regional politics, yet we require them to stay involved in regional with the legislator requirements for Permanent and pool Justices. (Abstaining on everything is an option, but what's the point of voting then?) Removing this requirement (still require residency or such) would also broaden the available candidates and allow more individuals who are objective and qualified to be involved with our Judiciary.

Hm. Interesting. I'll have to think about this a bit more. Probably won't change this in the very next iteration, I'll wait and see how the discussion on this unfolds.

Reply

I'm not a huge fan of our current set up, but I'm not sure if this is any better either.

I've been considering a permanent council set up, similar to the CRS, where serving on the judiciary doesn't affect separation of powers. That would probably help with finding enough people to staff the judiciary.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

My proposal should (hopefully) be better either way than what we have because it's mostly based on it but tries to clean it up and fix the millions of holes.

However, Bel, that's a very interesting idea. I'll have to think about that a bit more. That's a bigger change tho.

Reply