We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Rules of the High Court
#1

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
RULES OF THE HIGH COURT


[Image: MYEbnwg.png]

RULES OF THE HIGH COURT

The Rules of the High Court are documents issued with the approval of a majority of the Court to codify the procedures that are followed to manage the operations of the judiciary based on prior practice and the expectations of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices. While these documents are authoritative insofar as they will be applied, when reasonable, by the Court, they do not replace or otherwise attempt to supersede the Charter, the Judicial Act, or any other relevant law. In any case where they do conflict, the Charter, the Judicial Act, and any other relevant law will prevail.

High Court of the South Pacific
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
[-] The following 2 users Like Kris Kringle's post:
  • Amerion, Whole India
#2

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
EFFECTIVE 30 JUNE 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 chance 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.

Effective 30 June 2020
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
[-] The following 2 users Like Kris Kringle's post:
  • Amerion, Whole India
#3

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
STANDARDS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT
EFFECTIVE 05 JULY 2020

Consideration of Cases
The High Court may consider legal questions, review requests, criminal complaints and appeals when they have been submitted by a member of the South Pacific. Each case should be managed by the Court in accordance with the Charter of the South Pacific, the Judicial Act, this document and all other relevant regulations.

The standard for the admission of legal questions and review requests is that they be justiciable. The standard for the admission of appeals is that they be justiciable; that is, that they be submitted on the grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, judicial misconduct or new evidence. The standard for the admission of criminal complaints is that there is probable cause that a crime was committed.

The documentation for all case types shall be the same, unless this document provides for different documentation for specific case types.


Reception and Case Information
The Chief Justice shall post a Notice of Reception on the thread of any case within 24 hours of its submission. The Notice of Reception shall confirm that the Court has received the case and will consider its justiciability or probable cause; it shall also contain the Docket File Number, Reference Name and an invitation for the petitioner and the general public to explain why the case should be admitted. If the case is a criminal complaint, the Chief Justice shall contact the accused party and afford them 48 hours to dispute the probable cause of the complaint.

Initial Deliberation
The Chief Justice shall post a case discussion thread in the Conference Room within 24 hours of a case submission. The Court shall then deliberate on the justiciability or probable cause of the case and shall consider all arguments provided in the public thread. The Court shall hold a vote on admission or dismissal within 72 hours of submission, but no vote shall take place before the conclusion of the 48 hours afforded to an accused party to dispute the probable cause of a criminal complaint.

Admission and Dismissal
The Chief Justice shall post a Determination of Justiciability or a Finding of Probable Cause (hereafter referred to as the relevant document) within 24 hours of the conclusion of the vote. A Finding of Probable Cause shall only be used for criminal complaints. Both documents shall clearly state if the case is admitted and shall contain the following additional information:
  • If the case is admitted, the relevant document shall invite the petitioner and the general public to submit briefs amicus curiae with their views on the whole or a part of the case. A period of 7 calendar days shall be given for the submission of briefs amicus curiae.
  • If the case is admitted, the relevant document should inform the petitioner, the general public and, when appropriate, the accused party, of their right to request the recusal of a Justice. A period of 3 calendar days shall be given for the submission of recusal requests.
  • If the criminal complaint is admitted, the Finding of Probable Cause shall contain an indictment clause and the Chief Justice shall, within 24 hours, inform the indicted party of their indictment and of their right to self-defence and to hire an attorney.
  • If the case is dismissed, the relevant document shall inform the petitioner and the general public of their right to request an In-Chambers Opinion with the reasons for the dismissal. A period of 7 calendar days shall be given for the submission of requests.
The Chief Justice shall write an In-Chambers Opinion to explain the reasons for the dismissal of a case when so requested by the petitioner or the general public within the 7 calendar days following a dismissal. The Chief Justice may assign the writing to an Associate Justice. All In-Chambers Opinions must comply with the Standards for Opinions, Verdicts, and Sentences, but they do not need to be signed by a secondary Justice.


Assignment and Recusal
The Chief Justice shall assign the presiding and secondary Justice in compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct within 24 hours of a case admission. The Chief Justice shall make a new assignment if any of the assigned Justices recuse from the case as a result of a personal decision, a recusal request or an order to recuse, the latter as mandated by Article 1, Section 3 of the Judicial Act.

In the event that the primary and secondary Justices cannot reach an agreement on the outcome of a case, the Chief Justice shall assign a third Justice; the third Justice may side with either of the Justices originally assigned to the case and, from then on, the Justice with whom they sided shall preside over the case and the third Justice shall act as the secondary.


Temporary Injunctions
A petitioner, an indicted party or the general public may file a Motion on a Temporary Injunction to request the Court to issue, amend, extend or lift a temporary injunction. The Motion on a Temporary Injunction shall clearly state what is being requested and why it is necessary for the orderly progression of the case or for the maintenance of public peace and order.

The presiding and secondary Justices shall deliberate on the Motion on a Temporary Injunction and rule on it through a Summary Order within 48 hours of its submission. The presiding and secondary Justices retain the right to issue a Summary Order without a prior motion if, in their judgement, a temporary injunction is necessary for the orderly progression of the case or for the maintenance of public peace and order.

The Summary Order shall be issued by the presiding Justice with the signature of the secondary Justice and shall state whether the temporary injunction is granted and, if so, its scope and date of expiration. All Summary Orders must comply with the Standards for Opinions, Verdicts, and Sentences, but the arguments contained in them must be concise. The presiding Justice shall contact the party affected by the Summary Order within 24 hours of its issuance and inform them of the decision and of their ability to file a Motion on a Temporary Injunction to lift the Summary Order.


Deliberation
The presiding and secondary Justices shall have a period of 14 calendar days following their assignment to consider any and all information that is available, deliberate, draft and agree on an Opinion or Verdict. The writing of concurring opinions shall be done within this period. A Verdict shall only be used for criminal complaints. All Opinions and Verdicts shall comply with the Standards for Opinions, Verdicts, and Sentences.

The presiding Justice shall publish the Opinion or Verdict no later than 3 calendar days after it has been signed by the secondary Justice.


Sentencing
In the event that a criminal complaint is resolved with a verdict of Guilty, the presiding and secondary Justices shall determine during the period assigned for deliberation a provisional sentence that is proportional to the crime committed and the circumstances in which it was committed.

The presiding Justice shall post a Notice of Sentencing Hearing within 24 hours of the publication of the verdict. The Notice of Sentencing Hearing shall state the preliminary sentence and afford the petitioner, the accused party and the general public a period of 7 calendar days to challenge the preliminary sentence. The presiding and secondary Justices shall have a period of 3 calendar days following the expiration of the challenge period to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors that have been brought to their attention, deliberate and agree on a Sentence. All Sentences shall comply with the Standards for Opinions, Verdicts, and Sentences.

The presiding Justice shall publish the Sentence no later than 3 calendar days after it has been signed by the secondary Justice.


Appeals
The presiding and secondary Justices shall not participate in the deliberation or vote for the admission or dismissal of an appeal.

The Chief Justice shall assign the presiding and secondary Justices for an appeal that has been admitted from among the Justices who were not such in the original case, including Associate Justices on Senior Status. In the event that there are not enough uninvolved Justices, the secondary Justice of the original case may be assigned as secondary Justice, but their involvement shall be limited to ensure that the Opinion is understandable, grounded in law, formatted correctly and devoid of spelling and grammatical mistakes.


Expedited Cases
A petitioner may file a Motion for Expedited Treatment on a legal question or review request within 24 hours of the posting of a Notice of Reception when the context is such that significant damage would be caused by an ordinary treatment of the case. The Motion for Expedited Treatment shall clearly explain the significant damage that would be caused by an ordinary treatment of the case.

The Court shall deliberate on the Motion for Expedited Treatment as part of its initial deliberation and shall communicate its decision to grant or deny the motion within its Determination of Justiciability. The Court retains the right to decide, as part of its initial deliberation, to subject a case to expedited treatment without a prior motion if, in its judgement, significant damage would be caused by an ordinary treatment of the case.

An expedited case is managed as follows:
  • The period for the submission of briefs amicus curiae is reduced to 3 calendar days.
  • The period for the submission of recusal requests is reduced to 1 calendar day.
  • The period for deliberation, drafting and agreement is reduced to 8 calendar days.
Flexibility in Case Management
The presiding and secondary Justices can extend the periods for the submission of briefs amicus curiae, for the submission of recusal requests and for deliberation, drafting and agreement, should they consider it necessary for the orderly and effective management of the case. The Chief Justice or the Court may overrule an extension if they deem it excessive or unnecessary. All extensions must be communicated on the public thread.

In the event that the Chief Justice is vacant or is unable or unwilling to perform a task in the allotted time, the next available Associate Justice by ascending date of confirmation shall perform the task.

Effective 05 July 2020
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
[-] The following 2 users Like Kris Kringle's post:
  • Amerion, Whole India
#4

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
STANDARDS FOR OPINIONS, VERDICTS, AND SENTENCES
EFFECTIVE 30 JUNE 2020

Does the Opinion, Verdict or Sentence follow the required structure?
Opinions, Verdicts and, Sentences should include a top section with the key dates of the case, a list of the presiding and secondary Justice, a description of the decision being made, and a closing statement in the form of "It is so ordered". Opinions and Verdicts should also include a summary section and a description of the arguments that support the decision that was made.

Key dates are the date of submission, the date of justiciability or probable cause, the date or opinion or verdict and the date of sentencing. Key dates that have not yet occurred do not need to be included.


Does the Opinion or Verdict answer the question that was put before the Court?
Opinions and Verdicts must answer in a direct manner the question that was initially asked. If the question is on the constitutionality of a law, the Opinion must clearly answer whether the law is constitutional. If the question is whether someone committed a crime, the Verdict must clearly determine guilt.

Does the Opinion or Verdict provide arguments that explain the reasoning for the answer that was given?
Opinions and Verdicts should not merely answer the question, they should also explain in detail the laws, precedents, evidence and other arguments that led the Court to conclude that its answer is the right one. The arguments should lead a reasonably informed reader to conclude that the Opinion or Verdict was carefully considered and based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and the facts as presented.

Are the arguments based upon a reasonable review and interpretation of the facts of the case and of sources of law?
The arguments contained in an Opinion or Verdict should be based on a reasonable, informed and non-contradictory interpretation of the facts that are relevant to the case and to the various sources of law that are available to a Justice. Arguments should not be based on an interpretation of how something should be or on a desire to help the petitioner or a third party, or on other subjective criteria that would impugn the objectivity of the Court.

Sources of law typically are the Charter, constitutional and general laws, executive orders, Local Council laws, lower ordinances and written regulations, Court opinions, verdicts, sentences and in-chambers opinions, and custom.


Does the Sentence consider the context of the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors that have been brought to the attention of the Court?
Sentences should be the culmination of a reasonable consideration of the context of the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors that may have been brought to the attention of the Court during the whole process. Sentences should briefly explain within them the factors that led the Court to determine that the penalty being given is appropriate and proportional to the crime that was committed and the circumstances in which it was committed.

Has the Opinion, Verdict or Sentence been signed by the assigned secondary Justice?
Opinions, Verdicts, and Sentences must be signed by the secondary Justice on the relevant discussion thread and may not be published without such a signature. If the secondary Justice agrees with the decision but not with part or the whole of the arguments that support it, they may write a concurring opinion to be added as a section of the Opinion or Verdict.

In the event that a concurring opinion is written, the decision (i.e. outcome) should be presented as the sole authoritative section of the ruling and the opinions of the presiding and secondary Justices should be included as informative sections only (and marked as such). There are no concurring opinions for Sentences.


Does the Opinion, Verdict, or Sentence contain any spelling or grammatical errors?
Opinions, Verdicts, and Sentences should be proofread for spelling and grammatical errors at least twice after they have been signed: once by the presiding Justice and another time by the secondary Justice. If necessary, a non-presiding Justice may be invited to proofread, solely with the goal of ensuring that no spelling or grammatical errors are undetected.

Effective 30 June 2020
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
[-] The following 2 users Like Kris Kringle's post:
  • Amerion, Whole India




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .