I'm not sure I agree with mandating bans for all crimes. In my experience the Court benefits from having the leeway to assign sentences that don't involve bans, if it so chooses.

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

I'm not sure I agree with mandating bans for all crimes. In my experience the Court benefits from having the leeway to assign sentences that don't involve bans, if it so chooses.

I removed the minimum sentence so they don't have to be bans. The restriction here is that the bans can only be up to maximum length to ensure fairness. I've changed the wording to make that clearer.

(This post was last modified: 01-25-2021, 09:50 PM by Apatosaurus.)

Reply

I'm not sure I agree with mandating bans for all crimes. In my experience the Court benefits from having the leeway to assign sentences that don't involve bans, if it so chooses.

I removed the minimum sentence so they don't have to be bans. The restriction here is that the bans can only be up to maximum length to ensure fairness.

That's not how it comes across.

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

I'm not sure I agree with mandating bans for all crimes. In my experience the Court benefits from having the leeway to assign sentences that don't involve bans, if it so chooses.

I removed the minimum sentence so they don't have to be bans. The restriction here is that the bans can only be up to maximum length to ensure fairness.

That's not how it comes across.

I reworded it to make it clearer

Reply

Decreased maximum sentences futher

Reply

I believe that many of the sentences are still too long. I also think the High Court should be able to have some amount of leeway in sentencing, being able to consider any mitigating factors that could play a role in the ultimate length of punishment. Lastly, the various punishments all issue some sort of ban as either the only punishment or alternative punishment, I think that there are other punishments that would fit certain crimes better than a ban (eg. corruption being given a ban on holding office, etc.).

In the most recent case (https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid212838), the High Court determined that the guilty party should be banned for a year for the charges of contempt of court and bribery. Under this proposed amendment, the ban should (assuming the amendment existed prior to the case) be between 2-4 years rather than the one year that was actually given.

I am happy that you (as a new legislator) introduced this amendment, and hope that something might come out of this!

-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

To he fair to the author, the bill in its latest version seems to simply mandate maximum ban lengths in the event that the sentence does turn out being a ban, but does not necessarily required that the sentence actually be a ban.

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

I think this is probably too blunt an instrument to work as the 'sentencing guidelines' as proposed in the other thread.

Sentencing guidelines are about more than just proposing minimum and maximum sentences for every crime.

I would expect sentencing guidelines to address questions like: What factors (both aggravating and mitigating) should the court take into account? Are there any factors that must be taken into account, and are there any others that can be taken into account on a discretionary basis? Is there anything that the court is explicitly not allowed to take into account? What range of sentences would be normal for this type of offence, and are there any circumstances in which the court might be expected to depart from this range?

More broadly I wonder whether this is an appropriate task for the Assembly at all, or whether it is a project the Court would be better undertaking on its own initiative.

Reply

I believe that many of the sentences are still too long. I also think the High Court should be able to have some amount of leeway in sentencing, being able to consider any mitigating factors that could play a role in the ultimate length of punishment. Lastly, the various punishments all issue some sort of ban as either the only punishment or alternative punishment, I think that there are other punishments that would fit certain crimes better than a ban (eg. corruption being given a ban on holding office, etc.).

In the most recent case (https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid212838), the High Court determined that the guilty party should be banned for a year for the charges of contempt of court and bribery. Under this proposed amendment, the ban should (assuming the amendment existed prior to the case) be between 2-4 years rather than the one year that was actually given.

I am happy that you (as a new legislator) introduced this amendment, and hope that something might come out of this!

That would actually be 1 year as the verdict in that case was, since contempt of court and bribery are both 6 months. If not less as 1 year is the maximum.

(This post was last modified: 01-26-2021, 03:03 PM by Apatosaurus.)

Reply

I believe that many of the sentences are still too long. I also think the High Court should be able to have some amount of leeway in sentencing, being able to consider any mitigating factors that could play a role in the ultimate length of punishment. Lastly, the various punishments all issue some sort of ban as either the only punishment or alternative punishment, I think that there are other punishments that would fit certain crimes better than a ban (eg. corruption being given a ban on holding office, etc.).

In the most recent case (https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid212838), the High Court determined that the guilty party should be banned for a year for the charges of contempt of court and bribery. Under this proposed amendment, the ban should (assuming the amendment existed prior to the case) be between 2-4 years rather than the one year that was actually given.

I am happy that you (as a new legislator) introduced this amendment, and hope that something might come out of this!

That would actually be 1 year as the verdict in that case was, since contempt of court and bribery are both 6 months. If not less as 1 year is the maximum.

Good catch! I was mistakenly referring to an older version of the amendment.

-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