AG Refusing Cases

Hileville

Hileville

TNPer
TNP Nation
Hileville
Discord
Dennrick#0489
As file here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6957546/1/#new.

The question is can the AG legally refuse to try a case?

On first though I would say yes he can due to lack of evidence but then I though it is the AG's job to find that evidence but that really does not change the fact that if there is no evidence there is no reason to take it to trial. This may be a great issue that needs to be addressed. Maybe we need to make the AG have to attempt to get an indictment and then let the Court decide if there is enough evidence to merit a trial.
 
I would concur. As it currently stands the AG can act as the court, if he so wishes, because he can just say that there is not enough evidence or whatever he says to make a case. As you said, perhaps it would be a good decision to force the AG to *try*, and let the Court (who currently only hears a very limited amount of cases that the AG pre-judges) make the decision. That seems to be the most logical way, too.
 
So the answer to the question posed is yes as of now they legally can just not take the case to trial but then we are going to give a recommendation for legislation?
 
Well, according to the law, there is nothing that gives the AG the right to refuse a case. All we have about the AG is a description of their duties, nothing of which states they can refuse any aspect of that duty.

So at current time it does appear that the AG's actions are not in sync with the law.
 
Exactly. Since it is not stated that they may refuse their duties, allowing an AG to refuse cases would be violation of oath. It would be like the delegate taking the job, but then saying that he refuses to vote in a particular WA vote, or refusing to keep his WA nation in TNP.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Tim on the Attorney General Refusing to bring Trials to the Court​

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

Section 3.1: The Attorney General
2. The Attorney General will be elected during Judicial Elections.
3. The Attorney General must not have been convicted of any crime in the North Pacific.
4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
6. If the original Attorney General is unable to complete a pending case, the successor Attorney General will take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
7. The Attorney General may request expedited judicial review of any executive action by any official.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the Oath of Office for all Government Officials of the North Pacific:

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

As per the Legal Code it is the duty of the Attorney General to serve as the Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific. Currently all cases are brought to the Attorney General in order for their office to bring the charges directly to the Court. The refusal of bringing a case to Trial is not a duty given to the Attorney General in any legal document of the North Pacific including but not limited to the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights. It is the belief of the Court that there is a fundamental issue with how the process currently works. Currently it is the belief of the Court that the Attorney General in refusing to take a case to trial is acting as a higher authority then what they are. While the Attorney General may not feel there is enough evidence to merit a trial it is still the belief of the Court that the decision on whether there is enough evidence should reside with said Court and not the Office of the Attorney General.

The Court suggests the following procedures be adopted for all trial proceedings:

1. The accuser files a complaint with the Attorney General.
2. The Attorney General Notifies the Defendant that a complaint has been filed against them.
3. Within 72 hours from the time the complaint is filed with the office of the Attorney General the Court shall be notified of the investigation into the matter by the Attorney General.
4. The investigation shall last no more than 5 days in which the Attorney General must ask for an indictment and present all evidence to the Court.
5. Within 72 hours for the request for an indictment the Court will determine if a Trial is merited based on the evidence alone.
6. Normal trial proceedings will begin at this point in time.



So let me know what should be changed if anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top