Request for Judicial Review

[Belschaft]

From the Office of Belschaft, Attorney at Law, on the behalf of Mallorea and Riva​

If it please the Court, the Plaintiff hereby requests judicial review of the following question;

1. Does the ejection and banning of the nation Mall prior to a criminal trial and conviction constitute a breach of the right of my client, Mallorea and Riva, to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, as per the Bill of Rights?
   • The plaintiff notes that at approximately 5:30PM on the 25th of June my client, Mallorea and Riva, specifically his nation Mall, was ejected and banned from The North Pacific under the provisions of the Legal Code, specifcally Chapter 3, Section 3.3
   • The plaintiff notes that the Bill of Rights states that 'In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence'.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

May I suggest that Counsel for Defendant take a look at Article VI of the Constitution?

 

[Belschaft]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you are referring to my clients right to an appeal before a three person court, we tried that. I was told that I should have posted a request for judicial review.

 

[Hileville]

Due to recent changes to the legal code an appeal would be handled under the trial and therefore wouldn't be warranted at the time said request for appeal was submitted. The request for review would have been and is the correct way to handle this as the defendant is questioning the legality of the banning and the legal code method itself.

 

[Hileville]

This matter will now be heard by the Court. All submissions must be in within the next 48 hours.

 

[FALCONKATS]

i also agree with fellow justice

 

[Earth]

Official Brief Submission​

Across many legal systems, it is acceptable for detention to take place before trial. This is done to protect the accused, and to protect the citizenry against future potential crimes during the proceedings.

Generally, such detention counts against a sentence if the defendant is convicted. Of course, such detention must be approved of in a preliminary judicial determination (as it was here, or assumed to be) through an indictment.

In NationStates, the clear and acceptable principle for detention, especially for a sentence as severe as Treason, would be to eject and ban a nation. It is not an infringement on the Bill of Rights, as the detention is necessary to preserve the rights and safety of the rest of the citizenry as well as that of the accused. The government does not have the technological capability of 'detaining' a nation within the region of The North Pacific during official court proceedings otherwise.

While ejection and banning may be part of a sentence for Treason, the Penal Code establishes that such a sentence may be:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

As seen, the argument that the ejection and banning of Mall constitutes the most the government could seek from this Court is untrue. The penalty for Treason may be far more severe, and can be decided at the Court's pleasure.

 

[Hileville]

The time for submitting Briefs in this matter has now closed. The Court will deliver a decision soon.

 

[Hileville]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the request for Review made by Belschaft on the Legality of Mall's Ejection and Banning​

The Court reviewed the following request:

If it please the Court, the Plaintiff hereby requests judicial review of the following question;

1. Does the ejection and banning of the nation Mall prior to a criminal trial and conviction constitute a breach of the right of my client, Mallorea and Riva, to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, as per the Bill of Rights?
   • The plaintiff notes that at approximately 5:30PM on the 25th of June my client, Mallorea and Riva, specifically his nation Mall, was ejected and banned from The North Pacific under the provisions of the Legal Code, specifcally Chapter 3, Section 3.3
   • The plaintiff notes that the Bill of Rights states that 'In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence'.

The Court has taken into consideration in this ruling the following:

Section 1: Use of Ejection and/or Banning

1. Ejection and/or banning from the region The North Pacific may be prescribed as a punishment for violations of regional laws. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.
2. The Delegate is permitted to eject and/or ban violators of NationStates rules without prior or further consultation from the Government.
3. The Delegate is required to eject and/or ban Nations and/or Players that have been sentenced in the Courts to be ejected or banned from the region for breaking regional laws.
4. The Delegate is to inform the region and the Government of all ejections or bannings carried out in a timely manner.
5. The Delegate, in carrying out these duties, must maintain an adequate level of regional influence.

Section 2: Legal Recourse

1. In the case where a Nation feels that their banning or ejection was unwarranted, they may appeal their case to the full three-person Court that shall have the power to overturn the Delegate's ruling and order the unbanning of the nation.

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
10. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
11. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
12. Once an ejection is performed, the Government must notify the ejected nation of their rights within one hour, and publicly submit a criminal proceeding to the court within six hours.
13. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
14. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
15. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
16. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
17. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.

The Court believes that while the right to be presumed innocent until guilt is proven is in fact a right of all nations of the North Pacific it also believes that this right has not been infringed upon by the recent actions of the Delegate. The reason for this being Section 8 of the Bill of Rights gives express permission to allow for ejection and banning to occur as per the Constitution or Legal Code prior to a trial being had. However, the Court also has determined the following when it comes to the Constitutionality of said ejection and banning.

As per the quoted Article 6 of the Constitution it does not allow for ejections and/or bannings to take place unless it falls underneath the following stipulations:

1. Ejection and/or banning from the region The North Pacific may be prescribed as a punishment for violations of regional laws. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.
2. The Delegate is permitted to eject and/or ban violators of NationStates rules without prior or further consultation from the Government.
3. The Delegate is required to eject and/or ban Nations and/or Players that have been sentenced in the Courts to be ejected or banned from the region for breaking regional laws.
4. The Delegate is to inform the region and the Government of all ejections or bannings carried out in a timely manner.
5. The Delegate, in carrying out these duties, must maintain an adequate level of regional influence.

Therefore it is determined by this Court that Article 3.3 specifically Sections 10-12 of the Legal Code is Unconstitutional.

The Court orders that the Delegate remove the nation of Mall from the Regional Ban list immediately. If the Prosecution shall wish to continue with charges of treason the Court will proceed with the Trial pending further decisions of this Court on matters still under consideration.

 

[Flemingovia]

We need the Flemingovian constitution.