| [2012.HC] Pencil Sharpeners v. Philippinia |
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
Philippinia has pled guilty. My recommendation would be to issue an indictment and treat this as an expedited case. There is no reason to prolong this more than necessary when the accused party has acknowledged guilt.
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
My only objection to doing that is I’m not convinced that Shangyuen wasn’t party to this. Exhibit “Part 3” clearly states that both Philippinia and Shangyuen would endorse nations if they voted for him.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Would that affect our decision on probable cause?
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
Yes, as I think we should consider expanding the indictment both in terms of individuals and charges. It should certainly include Electoral Fraud, possibly Organised Crime.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
@Griffindor and @Nat, what are your thoughts?
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 might be overlooking the relevant case law at the moment, but Shangyuen has left the region and I am unsure if we can still prosecute him?
I would agree that if we just try Philippinia; then we could treat this as an expedited case. I also agree that the other charges Bel listed would likely be appropriate too. If we end up being able to prosecute Shangyuen as well, then I would be more in line with Bel's argument. -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 I think there is probable cause to indict Philippinia on the charge of Bribery (CC 1.11). This conclusion is fairly self-explanatory. Provided he is not indicted on any other charges, I think this case can be expedited (it shouldn't matter whether Shangyuen is charged with anything as that can be dealt with in a separate trial).
I think there is not currently probable cause to indict Shangyuen on the charge of Bribery (CC 1.11). This is because Philippinia wrote that Shangyuen would endorse people who voted for him, but there is no evidence to suggest that Shangyuen actually knew about this beforehand or agreed to do this (indeed, Philippinia said it was his idea and did not indicate anything about Shangyuen agreeing to this). Regarding the trading cards, while this was apparently Shangyuen's idea, only Philippinia made the offer and he also said that he did so without Shangyuen's knowledge. However, if more information were to come to light, I may believe there to be probable cause. I am also open to being convinced that my rendering of the burden of proof is incorrect. I think there is not currently probable cause to indict either party on the charge of Organised Crime (CC 1.6) as there is no evidence at present which suggests that there was ill intent (i.e. 'intent of committing an unlawful act') as opposed to negligence in understanding what is unlawful. However, if more information were to come to light, I may believe there to be probable cause. Additionally, I understand that my reading of CC 1.6 may be different from others on the Court and I am open to hearing others' thoughts on this. However, even in this case, it would have to be demonstrated that Shangyuen had some actual involvement (see my point on charging him with Bribery) as, without doing so, there would not be a 'group or association' which conspired to commit illegal acts. Again, I am open to discussing this. I think there is not probable cause to indict either party on the charge of Electoral Fraud (CC 1.8a) as getting people to vote for a candidate at the election so they may win is not 'an underlying corrupt purpose' but is, in fact, the definition of campaigning. I understand that my reading of CC 1.8a may be different from others on the Court and I am open to hearing others' thoughts on this.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
I'm a definite aye on probable cause for bribery against Philippinia. I'll defer to the majority, if there is one, on the other charges.
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 there is significant evidence of Philippinia & Shangyuen coordinating their activities, which is why I suggested Organised Crime. I also think it's important that Shangyuen is indicted, to avoid the precedent that an individual can commit criminal acts on behalf of another and thus shield them from liability. If Shangyen can demonstrate that they were unware of Philippinia's actions and did not coordinate with them then that would be clear case for a not-guilty charge.
I should also point out that our criminal standard is "substantially more likely than not", and I think this is likely to be met when it comes to the issue of coordination and thus Organised Crime. We certainly have probable cause to indict on it; I don't accept that ignorance of the law is a defence here. They had clear intent to induce people to vote for Shangyen in return for a reward, which is illegal. Whether they knew it was illegal doesn't matter. Considering Nat's views, I would suggest we indict Philippinia for Bribery and Organised Crime, and indict Shangyuen for Organised Crime. If we are satisfied that there was no coordination when we proceed to the investigative phase we can make a finding of not guilty on Organised Crime, but I think we at the very minimum do need to proceed to the investigative phase on both charges. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |