Judicial Reform

[Hileville]

Going to update this post with what I can remember form the Judicial Reform Proposals as I remember them.

<strong class='bbc'>Article 7 - Judiciary</strong>



1. The Superior Court has the power to interpret the Charter and Laws and may annul any Law or part thereof that contradicts the Charter and any action of the executive taken in the exercise of its powers that contradicts the Charter or Laws. The Superior Court has the power to adjudicate on the legality of elections and the power to determine conviction and sentencing in criminal cases, and resolution and compensation in civil cases. The Superior Court may exercise these powers upon being petitioned by an individual eligible to do so.



2. The Magistrate is the President of the Superior Court and has the responsibilities of the moderation and administration of the Court. The Magistrate may appoint an Magistrate to assume his duties pro tempore during his absence or in the case of his recall or resignation until he is succeeded.



3. The Cabinet of The South Pacific has the responsibility of appointing the Superior Court Magistrate after each regular election of its members. After a majority of members approve of the nominee they are to be submitted to the Assembly for approval. Nominees will be approved by a vote in accordance with the normal Assembly procedures.

This is about as close as we are going to get to what I had. I reworded it from the originally proposed Supreme Court 3 member idea. I will try and remember what other changes were made to it.

[LadyRebels]

Oi and sometimes the memory fades......*eek*

[Gandallfia]

Going to update this post with what I can remember form the Judicial Reform Proposals as I remember them.

I found this if it might help:

Article 16 - Responsibilities and authority of the Ministry of Justice 1. The Ministry of Justice shall be responsible ensuring that Member States follow the rule of law as laid out in the Charter and Laws of TSP.2. The Ministry of Justice shall be the place where allegations of violations of the laws and Charter of the TSP are lodged except under circumstances as laid out in the laws and Charter of TSP.3. In the event that the Minister of Justice is accused of violations of the Laws and Charter of TSP the Minister of Justice shall inform the Delegate of TSP who shall assume the role and functions of the Minister of Justice in respect of bringing forwards a trial and acting as prosecution for the duration of the trial.4. It is the duty of the Ministry of Justice to inform the Superior Court and the accused Nation of allegations made and to indicate whether the Ministry of Justice will seek a trail as a result of the allegation(s).5. In any trial brought against another Member State by the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Justice shall act as the Chief Prosecutor except in circumstances as laid out by the Charter and Laws of TSP.6. The Minister of Justice may act as Defence Counsel in trials where a Member of the Cabinet is being tried by another Member State.7. If a nation feels it was wrongfully ejected from the region, they may file a claim with the Ministry of Justice. Providing the Superior Court finds in favour of the plaintiff, the Delegate will then un-ban the nation in order to allow them to return to the region.8. The Ministry shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Code of Laws (archiving, interpreting, etc.).9. The Ministry is responsible for following through with Judicial Review when necessary.

I remember that we decided that 8 & 9 were to become Superior court issues and that I had floated the idea of putting in a clause that directed that the MoJ was responsible for following through with reform of the Judiciary when appropriate.I can't remember if we had anything on the Superior Court yet...

[Rebel-topia]

I can't remember if we had anything on the Superior Court yet...

If my memory servers me correctly (which it usually does NOT... ) I dont think we did...

[Hileville]

I updated the OP to reflect the proposed changes that I can remember I had made.<small><small><small><small><small>Dumb conversion- and even more dumb me for not saving that even though I said I was going to several times. </small></small></small></small></small>

[Gandallfia]

I updated the OP to reflect the proposed changes that I can remember I had made.<small><small><small><small><small>Dumb conversion- and even more dumb me for not saving that even though I said I was going to several times. </small></small></small></small></small>

Don't be so harsh on yourself!

[Gandallfia]

:whistle: *scrapped everything I had written as I saw your update*

[Rebel-topia]

<small><small>Dumb conversion- and even more dumb me for not saving that even though I said I was going to several times. </small></small>

Save early and save often... and Save in multiple places... That was mushed into my head my freshman year of high school by my CAD teacher... It works for everything, though...

[Hileville]

Yeah the procedures of the court and petition process will need to be made into a law. I think it clutters up the Charter to have it in there.There are also other general Charter changes that will need to be made and voted on along side of these proposals. I will sift through that some time in the next few days.

[Gandallfia]

Were we going to have provision for three Justices to sit as the Superior Court?

[Gandallfia]

Yeah the procedures of the court and petition process will need to be made into a law. I think it clutters up the Charter to have it in there.There are also other general Charter changes that will need to be made and voted on along side of these proposals. I will sift through that some time in the next few days.

I know you read the posts I then edited away! I feel such a fool for not having looked at the top of the thread first... :wall:

[Antariel]

At least you had forum access

[Gandallfia]

At least you had forum access

I've noticed you've been having difficulty, all sorted now?

[Hileville]

Got it from the old forums:

<strong class='bbc'>Article 7 - Judiciary</strong>



1. The Superior Court of the South Pacific has the power to interpret the Charter and Laws and may annul any Law or part thereof that contradicts the Constitution and any action of the executive taken in the exercise of its powers that contradicts the Charter or Laws. The Superior Court has the power to adjudicate on the legality of elections and the power to determine conviction and sentencing in criminal cases, and resolution and compensation in civil cases. The Superior Court may exercise these powers upon being petitioned by an individual eligible to do so..



2. The Magistrate has the responsibilities of the moderation and administration of the Superior Court.  The Magistrate may appoint Associate Magistrates for the purpose of aiding in and presiding over cases of the Superior Court.  These Associate Magistrates must be approved by a majority vote of the Assembly.



3. The Cabinet of The South Pacific has the responsibility of appointing the Superior Court Magistrate after each regular election of its members.  After a majority of members approve of the nominee they are to be submitted to the Assembly for approval.  Nominees will be approved by a vote in accordance with the normal Assembly procedures.



4.  The Procedures of the Superior Court shall be written in law by the Assembly of the South Pacific.

[Hileville]

I think now we just need to work on the Court procedures and we can wrap up this discussion then.

[Antariel]

(I now have access to all forums, G)

[Gandallfia]

Yep, I don't see anything wrong wit hthe Charter bit, would it be easy enough to lift the proceedures from the charter, and change bits around - indicating who is to be Prosecution (MoJ) etc.?

[Hileville]

Yeah that is kinda what I am going to do at some point tonight.

[Gandallfia]

KK - I was going to offer, but I'm not sure when I'd get round to it tonight so it wouldn't be till the morning (GMT +01 DST.)

[Gandallfia]

Made a foolish error, thank goodness for edit! :whistle:

[Rebel-topia]

G...<a class='bbc_url' href='http://s2.zetaboards.com/theSPacific/topic/953619/1/'>http://s2.zetaboards.com/theSPacific/topic/953619/1/</a>

[Gandallfia]

G...<a class='bbc_url' href='http://s2.zetaboards.com/theSPacific/topic/953619/1/'>http://s2.zetaboards.com/theSPacific/topic/953619/1/</a>

:whistle: thank you, see above, and elsewhere for my foolishness :whistle: However: <a class='bbc_url' href='http://w11.zetaboards.com/The_South_Pacific/topic/7711643/1/#new'>http://w11.zetaboards.com/The_South_Pacific/topic/7711643/1/#new</a>

[Rebel-topia]

There, too

[Hileville]

[*:2up7tixi]Allegations of violations may be lodged by any nation(s) against any other nation(s). Allegations must be lodged within the Ministry of Justice forum in the form of a post topic. These allegations must include the accused nation(s) and offense(s) they are accused of committing in addition to any witnesses or advocates each side wishes to have appear before the trial.[*:2up7tixi]The Minister of Justice shall be responsible in all respects for the processing of the allegation. If an allegation is lodged against the Minister of Justice, the Delegate shall be responsible for the processing.[*:2up7tixi]The Minister of Justice must call for evidence from the nation lodging the allegation during a consultation period that may last no more than three days. Upon the end of the three-day period, the Minister of Justice must determine if the evidence presented is strong enough to merit a trial. This decision will be made in a reply to the allegation post, and reasoning based on the charter and/or the code of laws shall be presented in the decision.[*:2up7tixi]If a trial is deemed necessary:[*:2up7tixi]The Minister of Justice’s reply to the allegation post should ask the defendant to enter a plea to the charges laid against them (i.e., not guilty or guilty). A plea of not guilty or a failure to enter a plea shall necessitate a trial. In the event of a defendant pleading guilty, the Minister of Justice may decide to hold a trial regardless or may pronounce sentence without trial. The Minister of Justice shall oversee the carrying out of the sentence within three days of the pronouncement as outlined by Article 7, 13.[*:2up7tixi]The Minister of Justice is charged with creating a topic that designates a motion for trial. In the opening post, the Minister of Justice must establish the conflicting parties, charges brought upon the accused person(s) (labeled henceforth as the Defense) by the accuser(s) (labeled henceforth as the Prosecution), the jury, and if the trial is open to public comments or is private.[*:2up7tixi]The Minister of Justice must select three nations to serve as jurors from a random pool of volunteering citizens. Either party may reject any nominated juror, and any requests to call for the removal of a juror must be registered within 24 hours of the creation of the trial thread. The Minster of Justice then has one day to select a new juror or defend the decision regarding the selection of the juror in question.[*:2up7tixi]The Minister of Justice is charged with guiding the direction of the trial: from the motion, to evidence provided by the Prosecution, to the Defense, to opening the floor for questions, and suspending the trial to allow for jurors to reach a verdict. Only those given clearance to post during the trial may do so as directed by the Minister of Justice.[*:2up7tixi]If the Minister of Justice believes they have an interest in the trial that may bring into question their impartiality then they may appoint a neutral Associate Justice from their staff to preside over the case. The Defense or the Prosecution may appeal to the delegate if they have compelling evidence that the presiding Judge is predetermined.[*:2up7tixi]Procedure for any trial is as follows:[*:2up7tixi]The trial will begin with three days for the Prosecution to present their case, three days for the Defense to make their case, and finally three days in which closing arguments can be made by both Prosecutor and Defender. The Defender always gets the last word.[*:2up7tixi]If the Prosecution fails to attend during their three days, the trial will be cancelled and the accused acquitted of all charges.[*:2up7tixi]If the Defense fails to show up during their three days, the defense is dismissed.[*:2up7tixi]Either side may request for more time.[*:2up7tixi]After the proceedings have ended, the trial thread is locked by the Minister of Justice.[*:2up7tixi]Following closing arguments the jury has a maximum of seven days to reach a verdict. The jury will judge only the charges presented by the Minister of Justice following the proceedings. A verdict is reached when the majority of jurors are in agreement.[*:2up7tixi]Verdicts must be announced giving only the charges laid, the parties involved, and whether those parties are guilty or not guilty.[*:2up7tixi]If a verdict is not reached by a jury, for whatever reason, a mistrial will be declared and the Minister of Justice must re-examine the evidence, as specified in Article 7.5, and decide whether to proceed with a new trial.[*:2up7tixi]Any nation found to be seeking to influence the deliberations of the jury will be prosecuted with a maximum penalty of expulsion from The South Pacific.[*:2up7tixi]Sentences must be carried out within three days of a verdict being rendered by the Minister of Justice, unless the verdict specifies a different timing. The Minister of Justice may call upon forum administrators or the Delegate to assist with carrying out sentencing.[*:2up7tixi]Appeals may be lodged with the Minister of Justice, but only if evidence is supplied showing the trial was not conducted legally.[*:2up7tixi]Appeals will be heard by the Delegate, following the procedures for trial laid out in Article 7, 5-18.[/list]

A question before I get to rewording thiso we want the MoJ to file all suits to the court or do we want it to stay the same and anyone can file a suit with the court? That is of course in all criminal cases. Civil is a little different. Also does someone want to write up a civil and criminal code?

[Gandallfia]

I think 1-3 are for the MoJ and then 4-12 shift to the Superior Court Judges, at the Court's behest 13 is carried out by the MoJ. Appeals (14&15) should be lodged with the Court and delegate and heard by the Court if it is an issue that is not related to the Judges themselves and by the delegate if deemed necessary/an issue with the Judges arose.I think as the Chief Prosecutor for TSP the MoJ should determine whether cases should be brought to the Court in all civil cases but anyone can bring a criminal case to the court directly, but the MoJ will act as the Prosecutor (except in cases where a Cabinet mmber is on trial where they act as defence - or does that make it too complicated?)