Mock Case: Your Candidate As a Justice

[Kingdom of Grolsch]

North American Republics and Kingdom of Grolsch have created the below mock case, to which all candidates for Free Justice are expected to reply, in order for you, the voters, to see how your favorite candidate would make decisions in a judicial situation. We hope this mock case will be useful to the voters and fun and challenging for the candidates! 

Title: The Low Civil Rights/Political Freedoms Member State
Concerns: Constitution Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5 (link)

Nation: The Amateur Bully of Sarah Ling (Short name: Sarah Ling)

Case Description: The Amateur Bully of Sarah Ling joined the Social Liberal Union on January 2, 2013. She joined the region while in full compliance to the Constitution. Therefore, the Minister of Immigration assigned Member State status to Sarah Ling three days later while updating the List of Nations. 

Sarah Ling's Civil Rights declined from Excellent to Average between January 19 and February 2, 2013. On February 5, The Amateur Bully of Sarah Ling's Civil Rights declined to Below Average level. Consequently, the Deputy Minister of Immigration at the time (who is now the Executive Justice) decided to send a message to Sarah Ling about the SLU's requirement of having Average or higher Civil Rights. Sarah Ling received a Personal Message on the SLU's forum. The Amateur Bully of Sarah Ling did not take action on the message within seven days. As such, the Minister of Immigration handed the file over to the Public Prosecutor, who is now seeking to prosecute The Amateur Bully of Sarah Ling for not complying to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the SLU's Constitution. The Public Prosecutor has asked the Court of Justices to give the Delegate permission to eject Sarah Ling.

JUSTICES: What is your verdict, why do you think it is appropriate and how did you arrive at it?

[Azerzia]

First, as Sarah Ling a member state, the appropriate trial process would need to occur. Based on the proper acquiring of valid evidence, I would be compelled, under Art 15, Sec 3, allow the case to go to trial. In that trial, if a guilty verdict was reached, and no improvement was made by the end of the trial itself, I would recommend ejection from the region as the appropriate course of action.

They are violating a core principle of our Constitution and have been given reasonable time to correct the issue and taking no efforts to correct it. By intentionally violating our Constitution and principles, they have shown themselves to not be willing to be a part of a region and should be removed.
Of the possible sentences, most are removal of the right to send messages of various kinds, then banning from various regional activities, followed by the big ones: ejection, temporary ban and permanent ban. The ones I have listed before the 'big three' do not address the fact they have shown themselves not willing to abide by the principles our region has been founded of, so are not appropriate. However, banning in any level has been shown in our region to only be for invaders, would be coup members or states who repeatedly attempt to enter after just ejection. Thus, in between the options too light and too heavy, we have ejection.

The only mitigating circumstance I could see would be the state explaining their actions. If they have shown that it was unintentional or that the issues they have received are flawed, there would need to be leniency during sentencing. As the law had still been violated, trial proceedings would still occur if the prosecutor pursued that option. Should a guilty verdict be reached, a lighter sentence would be my choice. Temporary bans on forum access and posting on the RMB would be my choice in that circumstance in order to cut the state off from activity. If they refuse to abide by the decision, they could then be ejected. If they then refused to make the necessary changes, a short trial period could be again held to eject them from the region since continuously violating Article 1 is a new offense each day, in my interpretation of how it is written.

[Millyland]

To start off, there would have to be a temporary approval-election for the appointment of a new Executive Justice, as he was directly involved in the case beforehand. If the Justice was allowed to serve on this case, I believe that would create a clear conflict of interest. During the trial itself, I would ultimately recommend that due to irregularities in the initial stages of the case, Sarah Ling be acquitted. This would be accompanied by a recommendation that the process of notifying her be started anew.

Firstly, preliminary investigations into infractions committed by member states are handled by the Ministry of Defense. (Constitution, Article 6, Section 8, Clause 1), (RAAGA, Section 1.4.1.4) Although Sarah Ling was sent a message by the Deputy Minister of Immigration concerning her Civil Rights, the 7-day grace period should not have applied. Since the message was not sent by the proper authorities, it cannot be construed as a government-endorsed warning. Therefore, Sarah Ling was never officially given time to improve before prosecution commenced. The decision of the Deputy Minister to send the accused a Personal Message regarding her Civil Rights is also highly irregular. Most members of the SLU are not active on the forums, and regional judicial policy dictates that telegrams are to be sent when informing offenders of the illegality of their activities.

Although inconsistencies with the specific case render the crime unpunishable, it should be noted that Sarah Ling has been in violation of the Constitution of the SLU for some time. As Justice, I would recommend that the proper government official telegram her, allowing a further 7 days to increase her Civil Rights. If she did not raise them within that period, then the new case files would be handed over to the Public Prosecutor.

[Azerzia]

SPOILER: Click to show

{SPOILER: My opinion on my statement below has changed, and this spoiler will be removed pending the result of a debate with Millyland}Before reading the below, please understand I am stating opinion and acknowledging an error in my own ruling and giving a reason as to differing opinions with Millyland. Kudos and cookies to Millyland for seeing my mistake.

In looking over Millyland, and realize I missed an important piece of protocol (which is in Defense board) with messaging member states, I would have to agree with Millyland's position. The state had to be messaged formally first in order to be given time to correct the issue. After the state was given time to correct the issue, I would then present my above reasoning on the other matters. I do disagree with Millyland on the Executive Justice needing to step down as the file was handed over by the Minister of Immigration, making them the accuser. The Deputy Minister/Executive Justice likely just mentioned it to his boss for him to handle.

[Millyland]

Everyone makes mistakes, don't worry! I spent a while on this case, carefully considering all possible points and checking them against regional legislation and policy. If elected as Justice, I will continue to do this, making sure that all factors are taken into account when a case is brought before the Court.

[Azerzia]

Looking at this (for the third time) since something felt off, would the old policy (written last year so before the new Constitution and the Court of Justice amendment) still be in line with Art 9, Sec 4, Cl 1 and Art 9, Sec 7 Cl 2? The implication seems to be there that the investigation by the prosecutor should be private until charges are filed, which would imply my initial response as to the situation accurate

[Millyland]

The Constitution takes precedence over parts of legislation it affects. Could you please be a little more specific? ;)

[Azerzia]

Clause 1. The investigation must be conducted in private, and those who are contacted as part of the investigation must keep all contacts with the Public Prosecutor secret. Names of those who have provided evidence to the Public Prosecutor will be anonymized.

Clause 2. If the Public Prosecutor decides to prosecute, he shall turn the case over to the Court of Justice and inform the accused Member State it is now officially being charged as well as inform him of the charges and the judicial process.

Emphasis added

Since it must be conducted privately and the first mention of the state being contacted officially about any issues is when they are being charged. Additionally, this says that it should be kept private, which would likely mean only the Public Prosecutor could send any official message to the accused state but he cannot say there is an on going investigation which must be kept private. The question becomes, does it mean the investigation itself is private or that the findings are private. My reading just now seemed to say that the investigation is private but it could go either way on the 4th reading =P

[Millyland]

If you read the Constitution carefully, you'll find that Article 9 Section 2 deals with the point in time after the files have been handed over to the public prosecutor. The policy of the Minister of Defence sending states in violation a warning message about their Civil Rights/Political Freedoms is therefore not affected by the Constitution, as such messages are always sent before the Judicial Committee/Public Prosecutor debates on whether to lay charges.

[Azerzia]

After extended discussions, I would like to put forward my argument in a more cohesive form than could be presented in the argument. I apologize to those I discussed with for getting flustered.

The policy in question relates to, in part, a 7 week grace period given to states about to be investigated by the Ministry of Defense. At the time the policy, the Ministry of Defense was the only group that could initiate an investigation and all members of the region would report to them so it made sense. They could act as a buffer and give states time before calling the committee (the investigatory group at the time).

However, an important change has been made. Instead of the Minister of Defense being in charge of starting an investigation, it is the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor must start an investigation upon receiving verifiable evidence and that investigation must be as private as possible. While normally the Minister of Defense would be responsible for reporting member states' violations since their job is to look through such matters, in this unusual but legal case someone outside the Ministry of Defense sent the message. The law says that any state may send the evidence for any crime and that evidence is presented to the Public Prosecutor. The policy in question, which is not accessible to states not in the government based on my understanding of its location (in the Defense board), says that evidence is provided to the Minister of Defense before an investigation starts. These are not compatible.

If we follow them both the result is that, for any crime noted by a member state, they send a message to the Public Prosecutor who then begins to investigate. They make note of the matter and ask the Minister of Defense if they have sent messages already. If no, the investigation stops and waits for the Minister of Defense to send messages. What this does is a. make no member state matter since it is up to the Minister of Defense to report crimes and b. leave it in the hands of a politician to send messages, which is a possible conflict of interest and is the reason we moved the power to start investigations to the apolitical Public Prosecutor.

Both of those results, limiting member states' right to report crimes (which is in Article 9, Section 2) and leaving control over initiating investigations in the hands of a politician (which violates the apolitical intentions of Article 9) are severe issues. Importantly, because of the positioning of the policy in question, no regular member state would realize that their is an issue reporting to the Public Prosecutor like the law says.

The policy, despite what I heard in my discussions, is not limited just to issues of CR/PF. It is for any and all crimes; however, if it has not been applied in all cases in the past, it means the policy itself has been violated without issue before, which implies that they are, at best, guidelines. Additionally, I can find evidence that the policy was followed in the Delegate term when it was implemented but I cannot find it for the half a year since then so I curious as to if it has been followed at all since then. That does not mean it hasn't but I am curious to know. If the policy has only be selectively followed, or not followed at all, there are major questions over how applicable it is or if it even still counts as a policy.

In my decision, despite the unusual event of the message not coming from the Ministry of Defense, no laws were broken. In following the policy in question, I find that there are substantial legal issues in how to apply it to the Constitution at present. Millyland has disagreed with me and feels that those issues are minor at best. That is the reason for the continued divergence in opinion on verdict and I will let that stand. In addition, I would encourage, no matter what an official decision would be, for the Ministry of Defense to work with the future Public Prosecutor to come up with a workable means of giving states some warning without violating the reporting rights of members of the region.