Introduction:
The intention of this amendment is to allow the court to issue orders to prevent further likely crime during ongoing cases and be able better deal with situations leading to a high caseload. Additionally, court may be able to prevent defamatory actions before the case is concluded.
 

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

9. Temporary Injunctions

(1) The assigned justice of a case may issue a temporary injunction to compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts. The injunction must be issued either directly to a party of the case, or to another individual or organization if the act described in the order directly affects a party of the case. An injunction may only be issued if pertinent to the orderly progression of the case or in the interest of public peace and order.

(2) Any injunction must include a time limit not exceeding four weeks, after which it expires. An injunction may be extended at any time for another four weeks. An injunction automatically expires when its associated case completes, unless it is grandfathered into a succeeding sentencing case if applicable.

(3) Issuing, lifting, amending, renewing or extending a temporary injunction requires approval by another justice not recused from the case.

(4) A temporary injunction may not unreasonably restrict an individual's existing right of participation in the region, nor may it exclude the possibility of seeking remedy through the court. A temporary injunction may not order an act that is not reversible. 

 

Differences: complete rewrite, based on a draft from Roavin

Old Revision #3

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

9. Injunctions

(1) For the purpose of maintaining peace and order and prevent further criminal activity in the South Pacific, the court shall be allowed to issue injunctions during ongoing criminal cases. These injunctions shall only be issued where considered reasonably necessary and shall not be unnecessarily broad and shall require the approval of a second justice when exceeding one week.

(2) The court may issue the following injunctions:
a. that a defendant refrain from certain behaviours,
b. that other parties refrain from behaviours that are likely to actively provoke further crime,
c. that other parties refrain from behaviours that would unreasonably affect the defendants reputation before a determination of guilt is made,
d. that the defendant be suspended from office or not be allowed to run for office,
e. that the defendant be removed as regional officer,
f. that the defendant not actively use or be restricted from using certain channels of communication maintained by the community, including but not limited to the RMB, the regional Discord server or channels therein, areas of the regional forums,
g. that the defendant not exceed a certain endorsement count,
h. that the defendant be suspended as legislator if and only if at least one member of LegComm has approved this injunction and the orer has not been vetoed by the majority of LegComm.

(3) The court may not issue the following injunctions:
a. that any party be banned from the region or the regional forums,
b. that any party be restricted from gathering or providing evidence and opinions, except for reasonable procedural reasons or to require private submission in accordance with the law.

(4) Injunctions shall expire after a specific period of time, set by the justice and not exceeding six weeks.
a. Injunctions also expire as soon as the relevant criminal and sentencing cases have been closed or when so ordered by the court.
b. Injunctions may be extended by at most four weeks at a time, requiring the approval of a second justice.
c. Any injunctions that requires the approval of another official shall only be extended with the approval of such an official.
d. If the total term of an injunction would exceed three months, the approval of a third justice is required. If no third justice is actually available, the Cabinet shall be compelled to appoint a third justice with all deliberate speed.

(5) Anyone deliberately or recklessly failing or refusing to comply with an injunction given shall be held in contempt of court and may be punished immediately, requiring no separate case, according to criminal law and not limited by the restrictions on injunctions. The punishment for this given shall not affect their legal rights and abilities in court and shall be approved by a second justice.
a. If the relevant criminal case is closed and the defendant is not found guilty, they may appeal such punishment. The court shall consider lifting or reducing the punishment but not be required to do so.
b. The court shall take into account any such punishment during sentencing and may choose to lift or change it, in accordance with the rest of the sentence.

(6) Those given such an injunction may request the lifting of the injunction. The court is not required to allow this. 

Differences: changed "temporary orders" to "injunction" on the advice of several people on the Discord; I will undo this if there is an overall consensus in favour of the previous wording;

Old Revision #2

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

9. Temporary Orders

(1) For the purpose of maintaining peace and order and prevent further criminal activity in the South Pacific, the court shall be allowed to issue temporary orders during ongoing criminal cases. These orders shall only be issued where considered reasonably necessary and shall not be unnecessarily broad and shall require the approval of a second justice when exceeding one week.

(2) The court may issue the following temporary orders:
a. that a defendant refrain from certain behaviours,
b. that other parties refrain from behaviours that are likely to actively provoke further crime,
c. that other parties refrain from behaviours that would unreasonably affect the defendants reputation before a determination of guilt is made,
d. that the defendant be suspended from office or not be allowed to run for office,
e. that the defendant be removed as regional officer,
f. that the defendant not actively use or be restricted from using certain channels of communication maintained by the community, including but not limited to the RMB, the regional Discord server or channels therein, areas of the regional forums,
g. that the defendant not exceed a certain endorsement count,
h. that the defendant be suspended as legislator if and only if at least one member of LegComm has approved this order and the orer has not been vetoed by the majority of LegComm.

(3) The court may not issue the following temporary orders:
a. that any party be banned from the region or the regional forums,
b. that any party be restricted from gathering or providing evidence and opinions, except for reasonable procedural reasons or to require private submission in accordance with the law.

(4) Temporary orders shall expire after a specific period of time, set by the justice and not exceeding six weeks.
a. Temporary orders also expire as soon as the relevant criminal and sentencing cases have been closed or when so ordered by the court.
b. Temprary orders may be extended by at most four weeks at a time, requiring the approval of a second justice.
c. Any order that requires the approval of another official shall only be extended with the approval of such an official.
d. If the total term of an order would exceed three months, the approval of a third justice is required. If no third justice is actually available, the Cabinet shall be compelled to appoint a third justice with all deliberate speed.

(5) Anyone deliberately or recklessly failing or refusing to comply with an order given shall be held in contempt of court and may be punished immediately, requiring no separate case, according to criminal law and not limited by the restrictions on temporal orders. The punishment for this given shall not affect their legal rights and abilities in court and shall be approved by a second justice.
a. If the relevant criminal case is closed and the defendant is not found guilty, they may appeal such punishment. The court shall consider lifting or reducing the punishment but not be required to do so.
b. The court shall take into account any such punishment during sentencing and may choose to lift or change it, in accordance with the rest of the sentence.

(6) Those given such a temperal order may request the lifting of the order. The court is not required to allow this. 

Differences: Combined the previous clauses 4 and 5 into one, and amended clauses 1 and 5 (previously 6), split 2.b into two points for the sake of readability, other minor language changes.

Old revision #1

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

9. Temporary Orders

(1) For the purpose of maintaining peace and order and prevent further criminal activity in the South Pacific, the court shall be allowed to issue temporary orders during ongoing criminal cases, especially where the court requires additional time to handle a criminal case.

(2) Justices may issue the following temporary orders:
a. that a defendant refrain from certain behaviours,
b. that other parties refrain from behaviours that are likely to actively provoke further crime or that would unreasonably affect the defendants reputation before a determination of guilt is made,
c. that the defendant be suspended from office or not be allowed to run for office,
d. that the defendant be removed as regional officer,
e. that the defendant not actively use or be restricted from using certain channels of communication maintained by the community, including but not limited to the RMB, the regional Discord server or channels therein, areas of the regional forums,
f. that the defendant not exceed a certain endorsement count,
g. that the defendant be suspended as legislator if and only if at least one member of LegComm has approved this order and the orer has not been vetoed by the majority of LegComm.

(3) Justices may not issue the following temporary orders:
a. that any party be banned from the region or the regional forums,
b. that any party be restricted from gathering or providing evidence and opinions, except for reasonable procedural reasons or to require private submission in accordance with the law.

(4) Temporary orders are set to terminate:
a. with the closing of the relevant case,
b. when so ordered by the assigned justice,
c. after a period of time to be set by the justice.

(5) Temporary orders shall be issued for a specific period of time, requiring the approval of a second justice.
a. temporary orders may not exceed six weeks, unless extended near the end of the set term,
b. extensions, each not exceeding four weeks, shall require the approval of a second justice and if approval of other officials was required for the original term, their approval as well,
c. for extensions that would cause the order to exceed three months in total, the approval of a third justice shall be required. If no such justice is available, the assembly and cabinet shall be required to consider the appointment of a new justice.

(6) Anyone deliberately or recklessly failing or refusing to comply with an order given shall be held in contempt of court and may be punished, according to criminal law and not limited by the restrictions on temporal orders. The punishment for this given shall not affect their legal rights and abilities in court.

(7) Those given such a temperal order may request the lifting of the order. The court is not required to allow this. 

Differences: corrected judges to justices

Original draft

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

9. Temporary Orders

(1) For the purpose of maintaining peace and order and prevent further criminal activity in the South Pacific, the court shall be allowed to issue temporary orders during ongoing criminal cases, especially where the court requires additional time to handle a criminal case.

(2) Judges may issue the following temporary orders:
a. that a defendant refrain from certain behaviours,
b. that other parties refrain from behaviours that are likely to actively provoke further crime or that would unreasonably affect the defendants reputation before a determination of guilt is made,
c. that the defendant be suspended from office or not be allowed to run for office,
d. that the defendant be removed as regional officer,
e. that the defendant not actively use or be restricted from using certain channels of communication maintained by the community, including but not limited to the RMB, the regional Discord server or channels therein, areas of the regional forums,
f. that the defendant not exceed a certain endorsement count,
g. that the defendant be suspended as legislator if and only if at least one member of LegComm has approved this order and the orer has not been vetoed by the majority of LegComm.

(3) Judges may not issue the following temporary orders:
a. that any party be banned from the region or the regional forums,
b. that any party be restricted from gathering or providing evidence and opinions, except for reasonable procedural reasons or to  require private submission in accordance with the law.

(4) Temporary orders are set to terminate:
a. with the closing of the relevant case,
b. when so ordered by the assigned judge,
c. after a period of time to be set by the judge.

(5) Temporary orders shall be issued for a specific period of time, requiring the approval of a second judge.
a. temporary orders may not exceed six weeks, unless extended near the end of the set term,
b. extensions, each not exceeding four weeks, shall require the approval of a second judge and if approval of other officials was required for the original term, their approval as well,
c. for extensions that would cause the order to exceed three months in total, the approval of a third judge shall be required. If no such judge is available, the assembly and cabinet shall be required to consider the appointment of a new judge.

(6) Anyone deliberately or recklessly failing or refusing to comply with an order given shall be held in contempt of court and may be punished, according to criminal law and not limited by the restrictions on temporal orders. The punishment for this given shall not affect their legal rights and abilities in court.

(7) Those given such a temperal order may request the lifting of the order. The court is not required to allow this. 

(This post was last modified: 12-14-2019, 12:33 AM by Nakari.)

Reply

For the purpose of maintaining peace and order and prevent further criminal activity in the South Pacific, the court shall be allowed to issue temporary orders during ongoing criminal cases, especially where the court requires additional time to handle a criminal case.

How would this "additional time" be quanticized? A set definition should be in place, like if a court case takes longer than, say, 3 months? Otherwise it's pretty vague and easy to abuse in any case.

Reply

Thanks for your idea. I think it is worth discussing. Here are a couple of observations I have:

• It is quite wordy; I think this can be cut down (for example, your 'refrain from certain behaviours' provision covers pretty much all the other grounds)
  
• I wonder if other cases should also be allowed to have temporary orders on similar grounds
  

Below is just a suggestion of how the main parts of your amendment can be simplified down. Feel free to take it or leave it.
 

9. Temporary Orders

(1) The Court may issue temporary orders which require a person or organisation to refrain from certain actions

(2) A temporary order may only be issued if the related case has been found justiciable and two justices are satisfied that:
a. The order is reasonably necessary to protect the security or democracy of the region; and
b. The order will not unreasonably burden the ability for a party to participate in the case; and
c. The conditions within the order are as narrow as reasonably possible

(3) A temporary order expires if the related case has been resolved, four weeks have elapsed, or the Court otherwise lifts the order
a. The Court may reissue a temporary order that has expired, provided the conditions in Section 2 are met

Also, I think it might be better to have an amendment to Article I of the Criminal Code, rather than redefining a crime by using a different law:
 

(5) Contempt of Court shall be defined as a deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the Judiciary from reaching a true and just result (this includes violating a temporary or permanent order of the Court).

Anyway, thank you for sharing your idea. I look forward to seeing how it progresses

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

Reply

For the purpose of maintaining peace and order and prevent further criminal activity in the South Pacific, the court shall be allowed to issue temporary orders during ongoing criminal cases, especially where the court requires additional time to handle a criminal case.

How would this "additional time" be quanticized? A set definition should be in place, like if a court case takes longer than, say, 3 months? Otherwise it's pretty vague and easy to abuse in any case. 

The time court needs to reach a final verdict is not always clear in the beginning - this is intended as guideline, so it is clear that the intention is not for this to be used in every case. It does not require a particular case to take a significant amount of time before a temporary order can be issued either.
Please take a look at clause 5 as well where the time limits are defined.
 

Thanks for your idea. I think it is worth discussing. Here are a couple of observations I have:

• It is quite wordy; I think this can be cut down (for example, your 'refrain from certain behaviours' provision covers pretty much all the other grounds)
  
• I wonder if other cases should also be allowed to have temporary orders on similar grounds
  

Below is just a suggestion of how the main parts of your amendment can be simplified down. Feel free to take it or leave it.
 

9. Temporary Orders

(1) The Court may issue temporary orders which require a person or organisation to refrain from certain actions

(2) A temporary order may only be issued if the related case has been found justiciable and two justices are satisfied that:
a. The order is reasonably necessary to protect the security or democracy of the region; and
b. The order will not unreasonably burden the ability for a party to participate in the case; and
c. The conditions within the order are as narrow as reasonably possible

(3) A temporary order expires if the related case has been resolved, four weeks have elapsed, or the Court otherwise lifts the order
a. The Court may reissue a temporary order that has expired, provided the conditions in Section 2 are met

Also, I think it might be better to have an amendment to Article I of the Criminal Code, rather than redefining a crime by using a different law:
 

(5) Contempt of Court shall be defined as a deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the Judiciary from reaching a true and just result (this includes violating a temporary or permanent order of the Court).

Anyway, thank you for sharing your idea. I look forward to seeing how it progresses  

I will take your suggestions on board and edit the proposal a bit.
I'll be honest, I was probably too tired to be drafting that.

Reply

I have significantly revised my proposal to be better written/organised and close a few loopholes/clarify a few things.

Thanks for your idea. I think it is worth discussing. Here are a couple of observations I have:

• It is quite wordy; I think this can be cut down (for example, your 'refrain from certain behaviours' provision covers pretty much all the other grounds)
  
• I wonder if other cases should also be allowed to have temporary orders on similar grounds
  

Below is just a suggestion of how the main parts of your amendment can be simplified down. Feel free to take it or leave it.
 

9. Temporary Orders

(1) The Court may issue temporary orders which require a person or organisation to refrain from certain actions

(2) A temporary order may only be issued if the related case has been found justiciable and two justices are satisfied that:
a. The order is reasonably necessary to protect the security or democracy of the region; and
b. The order will not unreasonably burden the ability for a party to participate in the case; and
c. The conditions within the order are as narrow as reasonably possible

(3) A temporary order expires if the related case has been resolved, four weeks have elapsed, or the Court otherwise lifts the order
a. The Court may reissue a temporary order that has expired, provided the conditions in Section 2 are met

Also, I think it might be better to have an amendment to Article I of the Criminal Code, rather than redefining a crime by using a different law:
 

(5) Contempt of Court shall be defined as a deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the Judiciary from reaching a true and just result (this includes violating a temporary or permanent order of the Court).

Anyway, thank you for sharing your idea. I look forward to seeing how it progresses  

So, a more specific answer, addressing individual points:
1. Regarding "certain actions" - suspension from office or RO powers, limiting a nation's endorsement count, etc may all be warranted but would normally not be considered an "action" of that person.
Especially in cases where power has been abused or a coup attempt appears likely, these orders may be necessary to maintain the peace and stability in the region.
Judges may deal with varying crimes of varying severity and I believe that each of the potential orders enumerated may have a potential application, even if they are hopefully never needed and used.

Enumeration and clarity of which orders are permitted helps prevent abuse by both judges and defendants.
If there are concerns about abuse of power, these could potentially be divided into categories - however do keep in mind that we currently already give the court near complete freedom with regard to sentencing. If the court cannot be trusted to deliver appropriate Temporary Orders, then the same goes for our current sentencing laws which are even more open to abuse.

2. I believe that it is necessary to distinguish between defendants and other parties here. If someone is not a defendant, the court should not be allowed to give general orders to these persons, except to prevent actions provoking criminal action by the defendant or actions unreasonably affecting the defendant's reputation before a verdict has been reached. Otherwise, orders for non-defendants should not be possible and necessary, unless they commit crimes themselves and thus become defendants themselves.

3. Personally, I think your suggestion lacks the additional safeguard of requiring a third justice or Cabinet action should no such justice is actually available after a period of three months.
Considering the current situation in which cases have been open for far longer than that, one judge is completely inactive and one only semi-active, my intention here is to prevent Temporary Orders from becoming de facto permanent and to ensure that the minimum full bench confirm that they are available if a case and associated orders extend for more than three months to prevent the situation we currently have, especially where such orders have been issued.

4. I do not think that it is strictly an extension of current criminal but rather a clarification to ensure that there cannot be a debate about semantics or any loopholes for this. Additionally, I have amended the relevant clause with the words "immediately, requiring no separate case" to clarify that this should not be treated as a separate crime requiring a full trial (which would be nonsensical and time-consuming and benefit no one). As this is a crime relating to an act of judicial procedure, I believe it is best treated as part of said procedure.

Sorry for being excessively wordy (and making it worse, I know) but I believe that sometimes excess wordiness is a necessary sacrifice for the sake of clarity, completeness and avoiding loopholes/abuse.

Reply

This is long. Like, really long. Way too long.

Thoughts as I have them:

• Injunctions are useful for other case types too, so I wouldn't restrict them to criminal cases. For example, a request for review is handled as a legal question, and it would be a useful tool for the court to order a cease and desist while handling a request for review.
  
• The entire Judicial Act was designed such that one justice can handle a case, but anything actionable requires signoff by somebody else. I would not want that principle to be violated, so the approval should always be mandatory.
  
• Preventing a run for office is dangerous and could be construed as, if not intended as, political maneuvering by the court.
  
• Why does the LegComm get an additional say about who should be kept as Legislator?
  
• Contempt of Court is implicit and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.
  
• Immediate punishment does not need to be explicitly stated either, as the Court can pile further temporary orders, including those that the affected individual cannot intervene on, in case of a violation.
  
• Requests to place or lift temporary orders would be permissible either way as part of a case, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.
  
• I feel it would be much more elegant to state what the court may not do, rather than specifically enumerate each individual item that the court may do.
  
• As I've stated before, my guiding principle when writing the Judicial Act was to give the Court much freedom to conduct each case as it sees fit, therefore I prefer eschewing very rigid structures in favor of more fluid guidelines with more generalized restrictions where appropriate.
  

With the above in mind, as well as several additional tweaks, I propose the following (much simpler) language:

9. Temporary Injunctions

(1) The assigned justice of a case may issue a temporary injunction to compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts. The injunction must be issued either directly to a party of the case, or to another individual or organization if the act described in the order directly affects a party of the case. An injunction may only be issued if pertinent to the orderly progression of the case or in the interest of public peace and order.

(2) Any injunction may only last for as long as its associated case is open, though it may be grandfathered into a succeeding sentencing case if applicable.

(3) Issuing, lifting, amending, or extending a temporary injunction requires approval by another justice not recused from the case.

(4) A temporary injunction may not unreasonably restrict an individual's existing right of participation in the region, nor may it exclude the possibility of seeking remedy through the court. A temporary injunction may not order an act that is not reversible.

Reply

This is long. Like, really long. Way too long.

Thoughts as I have them:

• Injunctions are useful for other case types too, so I wouldn't restrict them to criminal cases. For example, a request for review is handled as a legal question, and it would be a useful tool for the court to order a cease and desist while handling a request for review.
  
• The entire Judicial Act was designed such that one justice can handle a case, but anything actionable requires signoff by somebody else. I would not want that principle to be violated, so the approval should always be mandatory.
  
• Preventing a run for office is dangerous and could be construed as, if not intended as, political maneuvering by the court.
  
• Why does the LegComm get an additional say about who should be kept as Legislator?
  
• Contempt of Court is implicit and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.
  
• Immediate punishment does not need to be explicitly stated either, as the Court can pile further temporary orders, including those that the affected individual cannot intervene on, in case of a violation.
  
• Requests to place or lift temporary orders would be permissible either way as part of a case, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.
  
• I feel it would be much more elegant to state what the court may not do, rather than specifically enumerate each individual item that the court may do.
  
• As I've stated before, my guiding principle when writing the Judicial Act was to give the Court much freedom to conduct each case as it sees fit, therefore I prefer eschewing very rigid structures in favor of more fluid guidelines with more generalized restrictions where appropriate.
  

With the above in mind, as well as several additional tweaks, I propose the following (much simpler) language:

9. Temporary Injunctions

(1) The assigned justice of a case may issue a temporary injunction to compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts. The injunction must be issued either directly to a party of the case, or to another individual or organization if the act described in the order directly affects a party of the case. An injunction may only be issued if pertinent to the orderly progression of the case or in the interest of public peace and order.

(2) Any injunction may only last for as long as its associated case is open, though it may be grandfathered into a succeeding sentencing case if applicable.

(3) Issuing, lifting, amending, or extending a temporary injunction requires approval by another justice not recused from the case.

(4) A temporary injunction may not unreasonably restrict an individual's existing right of participation in the region, nor may it exclude the possibility of seeking remedy through the court. A temporary injunction may not order an act that is not reversible.

• I was trying to restrict injunctions to cases and persons for which the court should have a reason to order them - I did not in fact consider that case type, so thank you :p
  
• I considered both options - I suppose I was more under the impression of the current justice situation
  
• I suggested it for security reasons, though in hindsight, suspension from office would prevent such a person from actually causing harm, so it was unnecessary and dangerous
  
• I considered restricting access to legislatorship because of access to the secret hall as well as security-sensitive votes but at the same time considered it to be very invasive so I tried to create a safeguard? Well, this is why all proposals are up for debate! They exist to be improved!
  
• I, as always, prefer clarity, leading to excessive verbosity and potential redundancy...
  
• Part of why I wanted to allow immediate punishment was to allow for a ban... I've been writing too much of this law under the influence of tiredness and then tried to improve on that... when I should perhaps have tried rewriting it completely.
  
• As usual, I like being kinky and explicit :p
  
• I felt that enumerating might assist both the court and others in understanding what their options are. Sometimes, having examples and guidelines really helps, even if it isn't necessarily elegant.
  
• To some extent I agree with that but my experience is that people frequently like to be very "liberal" in their interpretation for various reasons (often not even in bad faith as the plea bargain thing has shown) to the extent of illegality and that clearer guidelines help cut down on this and that explicit restrictions at least allow things to be fixed more easily by allowing faulty decisions to be undone more easily.
  

I personally still believe in some kind of time limit and renewal being required to ensure that court does not simply die and make such orders de facto indefinite - here is my suggestion, based on your rewrite:
 

9. Temporary Injunctions

(1) The assigned justice of a case may issue a temporary injunction to compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts. The injunction must be issued either directly to a party of the case, or to another individual or organization if the act described in the order directly affects a party of the case. An injunction may only be issued if pertinent to the orderly progression of the case,or in the interest of public peace and orderor to prevent unreasonable damage to the reputation of a person not yet found guilty.

(2) Any injunction may only last for as long as its associated case is open, though it may be grandfathered into a succeeding sentencing case if applicable. Furthermore, the court shall set an explicit expiration date for each injunction. Injunctions with a total term exceeding four weeks require renewal every four weeks, lest they expire.

(3) Issuing, lifting, amending, renewing, or extending a temporary injunction requires approval by another justice not recused from the case.

(4) A temporary injunction may not unreasonably restrict an individual's existing right of participation in the region, nor may it exclude the possibility of seeking remedy through the court. A temporary injunction may not order an act that is not reversible.

Reply

Regarding your changes:

prevent unreasonable damage to the reputation of a person not yet found guilty

In part, I feel that this is already covered in the provision for public peace and order.

If this is referring to the case where an open court case may interfere in the perception of a candidate in an election, this is a potentially dangerous option to leave open. Suppose candidates Joe and Sue run for Minister of Military Affairs. In the scenario you're probably thinking of, i.e. that Sue sues Joe as a campaign tactic, then the Court could already issue an injunction under either criterion to prevent Sue from campaigning on that.

On the other hand, suppose Joe is currently indicted on charges of Espionage for leaking an SPSF op to an enemy military. This is a case that directly relates to Joe's job performance as Minister of Military Affairs. It is wholly reasonable for Sue to use that indictment (which is predicated on probable cause) as a campaign talking point, but with your language, Joe could reasonably request and maybe even expect to be granted an injunction against Sue for doing so, which would be absurd.

Furthermore, the court shall set an explicit expiration date for each injunction. Injunctions with a total term exceeding four weeks require renewal every four weeks, lest they expire

I lean against this, though I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Can we get an informal show of hands on the support of this?

renewing

That's already covered by "extending", no?

Reply

Regarding your changes:

prevent unreasonable damage to the reputation of a person not yet found guilty

In part, I feel that this is already covered in the provision for public peace and order.

If this is referring to the case where an open court case may interfere in the perception of a candidate in an election, this is a potentially dangerous option to leave open. Suppose candidates Joe and Sue run for Minister of Military Affairs. In the scenario you're probably thinking of, i.e. that Sue sues Joe as a campaign tactic, then the Court could already issue an injunction under either criterion to prevent Sue from campaigning on that.

On the other hand, suppose Joe is currently indicted on charges of Espionage for leaking an SPSF op to an enemy military. This is a case that directly relates to Joe's job performance as Minister of Military Affairs. It is wholly reasonable for Sue to use that indictment (which is predicated on probable cause) as a campaign talking point, but with your language, Joe could reasonably request and maybe even expect to be granted an injunction against Sue for doing so, which would be absurd.

I did put in "unreasonable" and I do not believe that it is limited to elections. As for elections, legitimate, evidence-based criticism should never be unreasonable damage, nor should simple, non-sensational, comment-free linking of an open court case. I think that in this case, it really is a matter of the court using a normal, common sense interpretation of "unreasonable" with regard to elections - if the court cannot even do that, it will also abuse power in far worse areas where the law is far less precise.
I personally do not believe that everyone would consider it a matter of peace and order to consider the reputation of a defendant in a criminal case, therefore I believe that it is better to explicitly mention it.

Furthermore, the court shall set an explicit expiration date for each injunction. Injunctions with a total term exceeding four weeks require renewal every four weeks, lest they expire

I lean against this, though I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Can we get an informal show of hands on the support of this?

I simply think it's necessary to ensure that a standing order cannot become indefinite with a completely dead court, that the kind of situation we have now cannot be repeated as easily. I do not believe that my rule places an unnecessarily large burden on the court (unless logging in once every four weeks qualifies as such). I do realise that indefinite extensions are not technically made illegal here but the court would be required to justify it far more if they were to keep posting notices of extensions with no other sign of activity or resolution.

renewing

That's already covered by "extending", no?   

[/quote]

They are near synonyms but not perfect synonyms. Since renewing is used in my previous addition, I think it's best to have it explicitly mentioned simply to avoid any unnecessary debate about semantics.
Redundancy is not really a bad thing, it depends on how it is used - a bit of redundancy can greatly help in ensuring that the message is clear.
If you still don't like having an additional verb, we can remove "extending" though :p

Reply

I like your proposal Roavin. I personally feel that the temporary order should be renewed periodically (four, six, eight weeks - I don't know). That way, it causes the Court to come back to it and consider if it is still necessary. Unless our current Justices think otherwise, I would imagine that this renewal would be a simple 'Nothing has changed so everything in the order is the same' (I don't imagine it would be that much work).

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

Reply