| Treatment of Appeals |
I'd like to have a discussion about our treatment of appeals. My initial view would be the following:
Thoughts are welcome. 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
I think this is all a very reasonable approach.
I would favour explicitly adding that a senior status Justice should be asked to be the secondary Justice before the secondary Justice of the appealed case is. Of course, since they have senior status, any such Justice may refuse. I would also favour adding that if the only secondary Justice available is the secondary Justice of the appealed case, then the standard for signing-off should be that the ruling is logical, based off the law, and formatted correctly (rather than that they agree with it). This is because they may have been intimately involved with shaping the initial case. However, I am happy to discuss this point further.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
I completely agree with this assessment. It is simple and straightforward and the easiest way to handle appeals.
As of now, who are the members of the Court? Kris, Nat, myself, and Bel by the looks of it right? If this is the case, let's say that I was presiding justice on the original case with Nat as my second. Upon appeal, Kris becomes the new presiding justice, and Bel (who correct me if I am wrong) who is in senior status would be pulled to be the second? Would that scenario be realistic, or would the senior judge not be eligible for being put into an active case? -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
(06-28-2020, 10:15 PM)Nat Wrote: I would favour explicitly adding that a senior status Justice should be asked to be the secondary Justice before the secondary Justice of the appealed case is. I was assuming that a senior status Justice would count under "another uninvolved Justice", but if you think this needs further clarification I have no problem with it. (06-28-2020, 10:15 PM)Nat Wrote: I would also favour adding that if the only secondary Justice available is the secondary Justice of the appealed case, then the standard for signing-off should be that the ruling is logical, based off the law, and formatted correctly (rather than that they agree with it). This is because they may have been intimately involved with shaping the initial case. However, I am happy to discuss this point further. I agree, this makes perfect sense. (06-28-2020, 10:19 PM)Griffindor Wrote: Would that scenario be realistic, or would the senior judge not be eligible for being put into an active case? The only difference between an active Justice and a senior status Justice is that the latter isn't considered for the normal rotation of case assignments. That's why, for example, I only asked you and Nat about your availability when assigning the LC Vacancies case. Aside from that, however, they still remain a member of the Court and can (1) participate in its business, and (2) be asked to sit on cases if there is a need. So yes, your scenario is 100% realistic. 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
I would create a codified distinction between a regular justice and a senior justice in this appeals process. Just to make it clear that they would be expected to hopefully take up the appeal (unless they are recused or whatnot).
-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
What do you mean?
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
Eh, I realize that I didn't make much sense.
I guess I am trying to say that since a senior justice has no obligation to take up an appeal (nor a standard case unless they so desire), it might be prudent to codify the difference between the justices in a sense that a senior justice is not obligated to, but expected to take up an appeal. -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
Well, technically you aren’t obligated to take any particular case either. You can claim at any point that you have conflicting obligations.
That said, you’re right that further clarity is needed, which is why we have a section on Senior Status in the Code of Judicial Conduct. I think that’s a step in the right direction. 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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |