Could you capitalise Chief Justice and Justices?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I could but it just seems wrong to me >.>

RL legal documents usually capitalize these things as well, right? If so I'll do that.

Reply

I mean, you're talking about a specific Chief Justice and specific Justices, so it feels right to capitalise them.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

Reply

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.

Reply

(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.

Overall the resolution is interesting and I agree that we, the depleted pool of Justices, should be dissolved in favor of this system there is one issue I see when selecting the next Chief Justice. I believe that the CRS and/or Cabinet should be consulted by Associate Justices when the Chief Justice seat becomes vacant followed by an approval vote by the Assembly.

Reply

Overall the resolution is interesting and I agree that we, the depleted pool of Justices, should be dissolved in favor of this system there is one issue I see when selecting the next Chief Justice. I believe that the CRS and/or Cabinet should be consulted by Associate Justices when the Chief Justice seat becomes vacant followed by an approval vote by the Assembly.

So, I'm not opposed in principle to doing that, but I'm trying to see what the benefit of this is. An associate justice is already assembly-approved, plus they wouldn't be legislators if the CRS had a problem with them. Could you elaborate?

Reply

Overall the resolution is interesting and I agree that we, the depleted pool of Justices, should be dissolved in favor of this system there is one issue I see when selecting the next Chief Justice. I believe that the CRS and/or Cabinet should be consulted by Associate Justices when the Chief Justice seat becomes vacant followed by an approval vote by the Assembly.

So, I'm not opposed in principle to doing that, but I'm trying to see what the benefit of this is. An associate justice is already assembly-approved, plus they wouldn't be legislators if the CRS had a problem with them. Could you elaborate?

Initially I thought it was necessary to consult the CRS because of a Chief Justice's access to confidential information. However, if potential Chief Justices are vetted at the Associate level then I can see why that would be redundant. 

Furthermore, the way I interpreted the resolution was that initial assembly support for the Associate Justice was for his/her role in supporting the Chief Justice. Whether or not the Associate Justice can be trusted to run the Court is a separate issue and should require a confirmation vote by the Assembly.

Finally, after rereading the resolution, I believe that it is necessary for an impartial third party to appoint the Chief Justice given the likelihood of both associate justices vying for the Chief Justice's position.

Reply

I'm going to second the point that it has always been difficult to find people to appoint to positions such as these.  I mean we're still struggling to fill seats in the Legislator Committee that was proposed under the same idea - how will this be any different?  

Then, should an associate justice be held to the same requirements as a Chief Justice in not holding other cabinet or government positions? 

In the absence of Chief Justice they fulfill the same role and have similar powers so it seems like they should be held to the same requirements.  Again, trying to reduce overlap between the three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) would keep from consolidating power in limited hands. 

Considering this as well, technically two associate justices may compel any institution or member to provide information (to an extent) and less room for overlaps or COIs would be preferable:
"(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."

Then, can a member of the CRS hold a judicial position? 

I also wonder if we want to extend 72 hours as the minimum case time or allow for a provision for a member who missed the three day period to revisit the case or issue?

Finally, this
"(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."

I think that as much as possible we should protect people's rights to personal privacy and in no way contribute to the culture of doxxing.  If there is a court case its not going to be an OOC situation which would be dealt with admin. Instead it will be an IC situation. Therefore, can we make this strong in wording so that its highly discouraged to use personal information at all in court cases.  Or perhaps provide an example (other than IP and multi-ing situations) where it would be necessary to provide any personal information at all. 



Green = additions or corrections and suggestions for clarity. 
 

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. Associate justices may not not serve as senior or junior cabinet ministers, as Chair of Assembly or deputy, or as Delegate.

(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 contacted through at least one reasonable means of contact  communication 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, through study of the 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.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply

I believe Roavin specifically designed it so that Associate Justices weren't firewalled.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

What would be the purpose behind that?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply

I see a few benefits. It widens the pool of people who can be associate justices, it saves the Assembly from having to appoint new associate justices any time one decides to run for office, and it may make the role of associate justice more appealing to accept since you can run for other roles without being blocked and needing to resign. If we fear we'll struggle to find people, we may as well increase our chances when possible.

(This post was last modified: 02-17-2018, 05:18 AM by Nakari.)

Reply