Users browsing this thread:

***Kris Kringle*** · 04-02-2019, 09:25 PM

I read the Judicial Act once, found it confusing and ended up with certain assumptions about how the process worked, based on what I’d read. One of those ideas was that sentences were an integral part of the trial process.

I didn’t ask because I didn’t think there was another reading to it.

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

**Belschaft** · 04-02-2019, 09:56 PM

The problem is Roavin's complicated "case" system that no one but him understands. People could assume that Kris and I are being douches, or they can take at our word when we say the Judicial Act is a convoulted mess.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Bzerneleg · 04-02-2019, 10:28 PM

I'm happy if the Court continues to use the current system and do their job with speed but also to their own ability.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

Nat · 04-03-2019, 12:15 AM

The question which I think should be explored is as follows:

Can someone effectively make a plea in mitigation for committing a crime while trying to present a defence against committing that same crime?

It is certainly possible. However, if someone is defending their case, they may not seek to plea in mitigation as they are seeking to disprove the charge. So if we are to keep this system, I think the Court should readily advise the defendant that they may (and probably should) seek to mitigate the charge while seeking to refute it. Without forewarning defendants that they have to make "in the event I am convicted" arguments, they may be caught out since making such arguments are not necessarily intuitive. In essence, I think the system could work but we need to make sure it does not do so at the expense of people who don't understand the judicial system well.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***Roavin*** · 04-03-2019, 12:58 AM

Can a few others please take a look at the Judicial Act and say whether they find how sentencing works complicated or difficult to understand?

Nat · 04-03-2019, 01:19 AM

(04-03-2019, 12:58 AM)Roavin Wrote: Can a few others please take a look at the Judicial Act and say whether they find how sentencing works complicated or difficult to understand?

I find it fairly straightforward, though the wording could be refined slightly. Perhaps 6(1) should read: "If a guilty verdict is delivered by the Court, it shall open a separate case to hear submissions regarding sentencing. If possible, the same Justice will be assigned to both the criminal case and the sentencing case."

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

**Amerion** · 04-03-2019, 02:02 AM

(04-02-2019, 08:07 PM)Nakari Wrote: I'm fine with this being proposed for future cases, I can see that in practise this might turn out too time-consuming when we have such an unforeseen amount of cases.

I have a significant problem with the Court deliberately ignoring law to sentence someone unlawfully, then trying to retroactively make it legal, which is what this appears to be.

I wholly agree with Nakari on this.

Although I don't believe it is the Justices' intention to retroactively apply this to the present case, I also think — given the number of cases before the Court — that burnout is a real and present danger to the judiciary and welcome any effort to make their lives somewhat easier. With that being said, I would appreciate it if the Court could address the concerns raised about the conclusion of the HCCC1901.

***Kris Kringle*** · 04-03-2019, 07:10 AM

If you start from the premise that Court business is structured around questions or charges brought by members (which is the premise I’ve always worked with), the mention of sentencing being a “new case” sounds more like fancy wording about a different stage in the same overall process and less like an indication to start an (unnecessary and burdensome) new process.

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

***Roavin*** · 04-03-2019, 08:04 AM

We could change it so that sentencing is part of the same case but done after the verdict is delivered, to allow for brief submissions. The flow is absolutely identical except that there is one less number in ORCS.

***Kris Kringle*** · 04-03-2019, 08:18 AM

I can’t stress how needlessly time-consuming an amicus brief submission time would be. The most I think would be appropriate is to allow for post-verdict motions from the submitter and convicted parties but nothing further. If we are going to do this it should be a stage in a criminal process, not a whole new process in and of itself.

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