| Contempt of Court charges for Philippinia and Shangyuen |
|
As you may be aware, Philippinia and Shanyuen have both failed to meet the Court's deadline to comply with an evidence order (link) made under Article 3, Section 5 of the Judicial Act. I have given both an additional 24 hours to indicate whether they intend on complying with the order. Their failure to comply with the order means that the Court is left to rely on the minimal testimony provided by Philippinia (which leaves a lot to be desired). Nonetheless, I thought it would be useful to begin a discussion here on:
To my mind, there are two main arguments for pursuing Contempt of Court charges. The first is the need to deal directly with the non-compliance of Philippinia and Shangyuen. The second is the need to ensure that the Court's orders to produce evidence cannot easily be ignored due to there being no consequences for non-compliance. Of course, whether it would be pursued all depends on whether there is probable cause.
Regarding recusal, I think there could be an argument made either way. Philippinia and Shangyuen have failed to comply with the order I made. However, it is common real-life practice for a judge to rule someone in contempt for something they did in their own courtroom. I am happy with whatever the Court wishes: contempt can be added as an additional charge to the current case (provided Philippinia and Shangyuen are given time to lodge a defence), it can be pursued as a separate case with someone else taking the lead, or it can be decided that it ought not be pursued. In any event, I thought I would get the ball rolling.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
I think contempt charges should be brought up against both of the individuals involved; actively fleeing from this region's Justice System flies in the face of our region's values and should be addressed. I think it would give some teeth to the High Court as a reminder that we are coequal branches of government and that one cannot evade justice in the region simply by leaving it.
I do not think that we would be required to recuse ourselves, though will differ to the Chief Justice on that. In addition, should recusal not be required, I think that we could/would be able to add it as a charge in the current trial (with appropriate time to respond given). -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 agree that it would be best to simply add an additional charge to the current indictment.
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)
(12-17-2020, 09:05 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I agree that it would be best to simply add an additional charge to the current indictment. I concur. That would be the simplest way forward. 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 can confirm that neither Philippinia or Shangyuen have responded.
Three things:
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
I cannot move forward with the Contempt of Court charge without guidance from the Court on the three questions I posted above. It would be appreciated if such guidance could be provided at everyone's earliest convenience.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
My answers:
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 vote aye as well.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Given three ayes I will move forward with it. I don't imagine Griffindor will be against and, even if he is, there is a majority for probable cause. I will post the announcement shortly and will inform Philippinia and Shangyuen via telegram. From now on management of this case will be handled on the main 2054 thread for [2012.HC].
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
No, I am not against it
 Feel free to move forward. -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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |