Where to even begin. While necessary procedurally, the net impact of this law will be that, if a questionable action occurs within a trial, the Court will have to ask the AG to file charges and open a new trial against the alleged violator. This will necessitate halting the original trial, as a defendant is entitled to have a person represent him and the legal question of whether or not the person whom they have chosen, or they themself (if they allegedly were in contempt) impacts the course of that trial in a substantive. way. So you'll get trials within trials, and everything but the innermost trial will have to wait, while our minimum 2 weeks long trial process proceeds.
I would propose an alternative approach, in which contempt of court is not criminalized but is merely a procedural issue, and in which power is given to the Courts to, at their discretion, suspend the advocacy rights of an individual for some limited period. So if, for example, I called Sanctaria a blowhard douchecannon in the middle of a trial, he could hold me in contempt and I would be barred from serving as an advocate (not convicted of a crime, mind you, so no trial necessary) for some set period. It needs to be discretionary and procedural, not criminal.
Since people already seem to think this is a good idea, perhaps pictures will explain it better. Imagine that each frame is a trial, within a trial, within a trial, and only the innermost one can actually proceed. That's the very real possibility created by this legislation.
Can any of us say we really want this? I implore its proposer to withdraw this from the floor until proper law can be written which permits the result without utterly destroying the barely-functional court system we have today.
Oh, also, this drifts very close to falling afoul of the bill of rights, which places no conditions on who may represent an accused party in a trial. We'd probably have to amend the BoR to make this constitutional - to say "you may be represented by any nation in good standing in the eyes of the Court."
Edit: Oh, also the complete lack of a definition functionally equates to this branch delegating lawmaking authority to the Judiciary by allowing it to define what is and is not contempt with no guidelines. They could insist that proper decorum is victorian third-person roleplay, under this law, and you'd be a criminal if you didn't do that. That's crazy, but very possible under this law. Hell, I'd do it if I were a Justice. That shit would be *hilarious*.
Seriously, people. Put goddamn definitions in your laws. I know it's complicated, but clear definitions keep us out of the clusterfuck we have right now regarding elections. DEFINE YOUR SHIT!
