I would like to submit this for your consideration. I believe the Court would benefit from clear guidelines on judicial conduct, not only in terms of having a reference for our own behaviour, but also to codify some of the conducts that might seem common sense but perhaps aren't so, for future generations.

Thoughts are welcome.

---

Code of Judicial Conduct Effective 01 July 2020 Article 1 - Oath or Affirmation Justices shall, upon their confirmation by the Assembly and before they are given any access or responsibilities related to their new office, and in compliance with Article 2, Section 2 of the Judicial Act, take the following oath or affirmation: I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will follow and uphold the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific and all the laws, regulations and ordinances derived from the same; that I will administer justice fairly and equally; that I will apply the law with compassion and understanding to new and old, citizen and official, without distinction or discrimination; that I will hear all views and consider each carefully when interpreting the law; that I will, when appropriate or required by the law, keep information, discussions and case details private and confidential; that I will not betray the confidence of discussions with my colleagues; and that I take this obligation freely, in good faith, and with full disposition, for the good of the Coalition of the South Pacific. Article 2 - Collegiality and Cordiality Justices are expected to be cordial towards each other while conducting the business of the Court and to treat each other as fellow members of a collegial body working in good faith towards the proper interpretation of laws and the deliverance of equal justice for all. Any disagreement should be discussed with civility and within the private venues of the Court. Justices may only express public disagreement with each other on matters of case management or resolution in the context of dissenting opinions. Justices are also expected to act towards other individuals in a way befitting their office, observing at all times the NationStates One Stop Rules Shop, the RMB Rules and Etiquette, the Community Standards, the Charter of the South Pacific, the Judicial Act, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and all other regional laws and regulations. Justices should be civil, helpful, willing to listen to all sides in a case, and willing to maintain order when challenged by either side in a case or by third parties. Article 3 - Procedure Justices shall each have one vote in all collegial decisions, except in cases where they are recused or uninvolved. Votes shall conclude when all Justices with a vote have voted or when a majority has been reached. Ties on matters of justiciability and internal Court business shall be resolved in favour of the status quo. Justices shall strive within reason to reach consensus on all decisions and give due consideration to all views that are expressed in good faith, any provisions for the resolution of conflicts notwithstanding. Article 4 - Impartiality and Extrajudicial Activities Justices are expected to be make all reasonable efforts to be, both in appearance and in reality, impartial in all issues that could be brought before the Court. Justices should refrain from opining on the legality, permissibility or desirability of any action, inaction or policy on the part of government officials or institutions or providing any commentary that could reasonably be construed as providing an extrajudicial answer to a legal or criminal issue, or favouring certain individuals or institutions at the expense of others. Justices should refrain from opinion on the wisdom or desirability of any action, inaction or policy on the part of government officials or institutions in their rulings or official writings. The Court has no institutional interest in matters other than the proper interpretation of the law and the deliverance of equal justice for all. Justices have no vested interest in any law or regulation and may not offer advice or any kind of recommendation outside the remit of the question that was asked other than indictments or injunctions filed in compliance with the Judicial Act. Justices are allowed to engage in extrajudicial activities that do not affect their impartiality or the appearance thereof, their performance and diligence on the bench and the dignity and image of the institution of the Court. Extrajudicial activities include, but are not limited to, casting votes, participating in other branches and institutions of the government, writing independently or for news organisations, and participating in other regions and foreign organisations. Article 5 - Diligence and Confidentiality Justices should be diligent in their duties and manage cases within the prescribed deadlines, unless unforeseen circumstances should intervene. Rulings should be based on a reasonable, non-absurd, well-argued, and logically consistent interpretation of the law and the facts as presented and argued by the petitioner, interested parties, and the public, and as deliberated internally by the presiding and signing Justices. Rulings should be easy to understand by a reasonably informed reader and should include, when appropriate, citations and references. Justices should maintain the confidentiality of the Court's proceedings and may not disclose without the authorisation of a majority of the Court any information that is not already available to the public. Article 6 - Chief Justice The Chief Justice holds seniority over their Associate Justices and has the power to manage the rotation of case assignments and may, under Article 1, Section 3 of the Judicial Act, order the recusal of an Associate Justice, but they may not exercise further authority over the judiciary without the consent of a majority of the High Court. The Chief Justice may not exercise any authority or discharge any power in any way that is contrary to the Charter of the South Pacific, the Judicial Act, the Code of Judicial Conduct and all other regional laws and regulations. The Chief Justice is expected to exercise their duties with fairness and within the spirit of collegiality and cordiality. The rotation of case assignments should be done fairly and transparently so that all Justices have an equal change to preside over, and sign on, cases, while observing the personal obligations and availability of each Justice. The Chief Justice may represent the Court and its interests before other government institutions, but they shall not act unilaterally or misrepresent the position or views of the Court. The Chief Justice shall not hold any other Office of the Coalition. The Chief Justice should takes steps to avoid holding offices within other government institutions, or to avoid performing actions while holding offices within other government institutions, where their impartiality might come under question. Article 7 - Senior Status An Associate Justice may request to be designated for Senior Status if they wish to continue their service with the Court but require a reduced workload on account of their personal obligations. An Associate Justice on Senior Status will not ordinarily be considered for the regular rotation of case assignments but is allowed to participate in all other deliberations of the Court and may be assigned to cases if deemed necessary by the Chief Justice or by the Court. An Associate Justice on Senior Status is subject to the same obligations and responsibilities as any other Justice.

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

(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020, 06:08 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I think this all sounds quite reasonable, thank you for writing it

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

Reply

I've added the following article to the draft:

Article 3 - Procedure
Justices shall each have one vote in all collegial decisions, except in cases where they are recused or uninvolved. Votes shall conclude when all Justices with a vote have voted or when a majority has been reached. Ties on matters of justiciability and internal Court business shall be resolved in favour of the status quo. Ties on matters of case decisions may be resolved with the inclusion of an additional Justice.

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

This addition sounds good; however, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to when you mention matters of case decisions.

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

(This post was last modified: 06-28-2020, 06:51 PM by Nat.)

Reply

Would it be better if I edited that to say "on matters of opinions, verdicts or sentences"?

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

So your proposal is that when the primary and secondary Justices are unable to resolve their differences (including to issue a decision with separate opinions) then a third Justice breaks the tie? Am I understanding that correctly?

I think it would be good to make very explicit that every effort should be made to avoid issuing seperate opinions or involving a third Justice. Otherwise, the Court may end up functionally having three Justices hearing each case and issuing separate opinions all the time (which, while that could be fine, does not seem to be the way the Judicial Act foresees things).

Finally, before all of these proposed guidelines come into effect, I think it would be good for them to be made publicly available for consultation. While there is not much which is groundbreaking, I think allowing for public submissions would reduce any risk that these new documents are ill-received.

EDIT: sorry the last paragraph is a bit of a duplication of what I wrote on the Discord channel, I forgot I had mentioned that yesterday

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

(This post was last modified: 06-28-2020, 07:34 PM by Nat.)

Reply

My concern is a hypothetical scenario where the presiding and secondary Justices simply cannot agree on the decision (i.e. outcome) of the case. If that happened, I think the only solution would be to open up the floor for a third Justice to see if they agree with either of the existing positions. They would then become the secondary in a new pair of Justices assigned to the case, so in a sense we wouldn't have 3 Justices in a case as much as we'd simply be having a new presiding and secondary. This wouldn't (and shouldn't) be a common scenario, but I think the provision should be there in case it's ever needed.

The issue of concurring opinions is where both Justices agree on the decision but not on the specific arguments. Again, not an ideal scenario, since both Justices should do as we do now and find a common ground, but if that proves too difficult and it risks affecting the Court's diligence, it might be convenient to have the possibility of a concurring opinion so that both opinions are reflected and what truly matters, which is the answer itself (e.g. is X legal, is Y guilty) still gets published.

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

(This post was last modified: 06-28-2020, 07:42 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I support both the tiebreaker and separate opinion proposals (they are very good forward thinking on your part). I do think that a sentence should be added somewhere to make it clear that this should be the exception to the rule.

It would be good to see the provision for a tiebreaker more thoroughly explained (if that is the case, it may have to be moved from Article 3). For example: If the primary and secondary Justices cannot reach an agreement on the outcome of a case, a third Justice should be assigned; the third Justice may side with either of the Justices originally on the case and, from then on, the Justice they sided with shall preside over the case and the third Justice shall act as the secondary.

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

Reply

Overall, the writing is very good to establish a precedent on how the Court will work, especially in regards to its most important part: its guidance on how justices will interact.

I like the tiebreaker idea. As unlikely as it is to happen (because we are all generally consensus-driven in NationStates), it is a good mechanism for a "what if" that arises.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Article 7 has two typos; the first sentence should read (changed words bolded):

An Associate Justice may request to be designated for Senior Status if they wish to continue their active service with the Court but require a reduced workload on account of their personal obligations. 

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

Reply