I think it’s a matter of practical necessity that non-main justices are “side jobs.” The court is as active as it’s ever been, and yet only a single Justice is currently needed. The vast majority of the time, associates aren’t needed. So it’s unrealistic to expect active players to tie themselves down to a job they’ll rarely get to do. It’s not perfect, but few things are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the vast majority of the time justices aren't needed, then instead of making two AJ positions why not make one or allow the Chief Justice to select a deputy justice that the assembly then approves of?

The logic of "We don't really need the position, but it's important enough to create 2 more of, but it's also going to be treated as a side job" doesn't make sense.  We already had a three member court that did wonders. /sarcasm

It is the difference between stating that we want a legislative branch because of need and we're creating part-time jobs for already active players who hold full-time jobs.  If the goal is to give active players who already hold jobs another source of power, then nope.  

Again, I'm going to keep bringing up Legislator Committee because it functions in a similar way (3 members selected by the cabinet and then approved by the Assembly). Right now it's barely functioning as envisioned most likely because we don't need 3 members. Also the very fact that we can't get a third member.  If this law and the doubling up is fine, then we also need to allow Legislator Committee members to not be firewalled.

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

or allow the Chief Justice to select a deputy justice that the assembly then approves of?

I would rather Court not appoint Court, that's a very risky avenue to go down.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

Hold on. I was under the impression that, with this reform, each Justice, Chief or Associate, would regularly handle their own cases. What's the point of getting rid of the Pool otherwise?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

As I understand it, the group assigns cases as they see fit. Given that the volume of cases isn’t overly large and overlapping cases are relatively rare in the court’s history, it’s very unlikely that all 4 people end up being regularly active in the court.

And frankly, I don’t really think it’s a particularly good idea to create 3 new seats in government that need to be actively filled, especially when the required qualifications are so high. Moving from the old 3-Justice panel model wasn’t just a response to corruption— it was also an acknowledgement that one person usually did all the work anyways.

Reply

or allow the Chief Justice to select a deputy justice that the assembly then approves of?

I would rather Court not appoint Court, that's a very risky avenue to go down.

Perhaps similarly to how the cabinet being able to appoint itself might be risky? I trust and like the current cabinet (almost all of it ) but this law will be in effect for at least the next 1-2 years and about 6 cabinets.  

So I think I like some parts of this law such as the ability of the Justice to ask questions and pursue the case (what inquisitorial covers).  The parts I'd like to look at more closely are the need for new positions and who should be able to fill those positions.

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

Glen has already adequately and eloquently elaborated on most of what I would be saying here. I do want to add one specific thing, though:

Hold on. I was under the impression that, with this reform, each Justice, Chief or Associate, would regularly handle their own cases. What's the point of getting rid of the Pool otherwise?

An AJ can, but doesn't have to, regularly handle their own cases. How the Court organizes itself in that regard would be left to the Court itself to decide, so long as it follows proper procedure and considers recusals and such.

The difference between the pool model is that with the pool, the PJ always did all of the work unchecked, with a pool justice only jumping in if the PJ was recused or a decision was appealed. Under the new model, the AJs have more to do automatically - even if the CJ operates mostly as the PJ, the CJ has more power (for example, the ability to compel evidence) but that power is also checked by those AJs.

In my ideal view, you'd have a balance: The CJ would be most active but would routinely give a case here or there to an AJ, or even outright handle a case together with a newer AJ, that is otherwise free to make sure that the AJs are all ready and experienced to take over as CJ if needed.

Reply

Roavin's right. Ideally, a balance would be struck that not only efficiently handles the business of the Court, but also trains several AJs for the role of CJ. This is absolutely possible.

That said, AJ is still a role that requires far less activity than leading executive or legislative positions. It doesn't make sense to firewall the position when it really is a side job, especially when this severely limits the pool of people who can actually perform the job. 

Yes, this creates sinecure. Unfortunately, the other option is to create yet another set of government positions that are firewalled, and just like with the Legislator Committee, such a set of positions will be incredibly hard to fill.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

The drafts so far:

Spoiler

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, a willing and eligible Associate Justice will be selected by their peers 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 to ensure that, whenever possible, 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 serve as senior or junior cabinet minister, as Chair of Assembly or their 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 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 it to be substantially more likely than not 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 as that which reveals personally identifiable information or which 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.

1 The High Court will consist of one Permanent Justice Chief Justice and a Pool of Justices a number of Associate Justices, and will hold exclusive judicial authority in the Coalition.

2. The procedure for the appointment of the Permanent Justice and the members of the Pool of Justices the justices will be defined in a general law by the Assembly.

Resolution on the Passage of the Judicial Act

The Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific resolves the following upon passage of the Judicial Act:

(1) The incumbent Permanent Justice will be appointed as Chief Justice.

(2) The Pool of Justices will be dissolved.

(3) As per Article 1, Section 6.a of the Judicial Act, the Cabinet is compelled to swiftly nominate associate justices. The Assembly demands that the Cabinet issue at least two nominations within a week of passage.

(4) Any cases of the High Court extant at the time of passage will be completed as per the previous court procedures. This does not include appeals filed after passage.

A few points to discuss:

• Selection of Chief Justice - Frost now seems principally on board that the AJs together decide which of them becomes CJ, but notes that there may be a tiebreaker necessary. If there are two AJs, both eligible and willing, the Court may deadlock. My thoughts here is that we don't need to do anything here - the Cabinet will, at that point, likely have to appoint a new AJ anyway, so the new AJ appointment can then break the tie.
  
• Escade noted that she thinks 72 hours is too short of a minimum case time. I don't mind expanding this to a week in the final draft.
  
• Whether to firewall AJs or not is still a point of contention. My thoughts on this are obvious, I don't think they should be firewalled. But maybe we can compromise with this: what if we introduce required recusal situations in Article 2?
  
• The number of AJs is currently 2 or more. I feel that's a good number, and without a firewall, that's not a number that means people get in the way. In practice I can think of more than two AJs next to Kris that I'd like to see on the court.
  

I'm optimistic that we can clear up the above few points and move forward to vote soon.

Reply

I think the draft is good overall, but could do with some clarity in regards to "cases" in 3 through 7 - at some points it is a tad confusing, though I think I understand what is meant to say.

I think three justices, one chief and two associate, is the right number.

_{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

I think the draft is good overall, but could do with some clarity in regards to "cases" in 3 through 7 - at some points it is a tad confusing, though I think I understand what is meant to say.

Would it help to simply include a definition for case in Article 1?

Or alternatively, I'm open for using another term altogether.

Reply

How things are meant to "flow" isn't very clear; it seems to me like everything is meant to start as a Legal Question, with Criminal Cases coming into existence via a question like "Did X break the law in doing Y" - I'm not sure if this how things are meant to work. Similarly, the wording seems to suggest that Sentencing is a separate case to the Criminal Case - again, not sure if this is what you intended but how the law seems to be written.

_{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