Attorney General Amendment Act

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Attorney General Amendment Act

1. Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
2. The Attorney General will have discretion to manage the prosecution of all criminal cases brought before the Court, save those outlined below, and will also act as a legal advisor to the Delegate, and the Executive, of The North Pacific upon request.
Click to expand...

2. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
3. The Attorney General shall not be involved in the prosecution of any criminal case in which they are a defendant, a defense attorney, or a witness.
Click to expand...

3. Chapter 6, Section 6.7 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 6.7: The Attorney General
33. The election for the office of Attorney General shall be held during the Judicial Cycle.
34. Any deputy appointed by the Attorney General may not serve concurrently as either a Justice or a Temporary Hearing Officer.
35. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.
36. Any person (“the complainant”) may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
37. The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested.
38. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
39. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to manage the prosecution of a case, the Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case. If the Delegate is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in the case, then the Vice Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case.
40. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion of any case the management of which they have undertaken.
41. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to see to completion a pending case before the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over the managing of the prosecution.
42. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
43. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
44. For the purposes of this section, “managing the prosecution of a case” includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Click to expand...

4. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.
 
I highlight below the changes effected by this bill:
Attorney General Amendment Act

1. Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
2. The Attorney General will serve as prosecutor in have discretion to manage the prosecution of all criminal cases brought before the Court, save those outlined below, and will also act as a legal advisor to the Delegate, and the Executive of The North Pacific upon request.
Click to expand...

2. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
3. The Attorney General shall not serve as prosecutor in be involved in the prosecution of any criminal case in which they are a defendant, a defense attorney, or a witness.
Click to expand...

3. Chapter 6, Section 6.7 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 6.7: The Attorney General
33. The election for the office of Attorney General shall be held during the Judicial Cycle.

N.B. The remaining of this section is more or less completely rewritten, so I cannot highlight the changes word-for-word.

34. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion any proceeding being prosecuted.
35. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to complete a pending case before the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
36. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.
37. The Attorney General may request expedited judicial review of any executive action by any official.
38. Any deputy appointed by the Attorney General may not serve concurrently as either a Justice or a Temporary Hearing Officer.
39. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case to act as Special Prosecutor for that case.
40. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to act as Special Prosecutor, the Delegate shall appoint a member of the Regional Assembly, who is not otherwise party to that case, to be a deputy Attorney General who shall then act as Special Prosecutor.
41. This Special Prosecutor shall serve for the duration of the trial and may only be dismissed prior to this by the Delegate at their discretion or by the Regional Assembly via a recall vote
34. Any deputy appointed by the Attorney General may not serve concurrently as either a Justice or a Temporary Hearing Officer.
35. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.

N.B. In the definition of "complainant" in the following section, I use the term "person". We may want to change this, depending on whom we want to allow to bring criminal complaints. Possibilities: Nations in the region, citizens, members of the RA, everyone (the use of "person" allows everyone).

36. Any person ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
37. The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested.
38. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
39. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to manage the prosecution of a case, the Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case. If the Delegate is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in the case, then the Vice Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case.
40. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion of any case the management of which they have undertaken.
41. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to see to completion a pending case before the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over the managing of the prosecution.
42. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
43. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
44. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Click to expand...

4. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.

This bill is co-authored by Sillystring and myself, with feedback from mcmasterdonia, as well as input from discussions with a few members over the regional IRC channel. It has also been previewed and approved unanimously by the Cabinet.

The effect of this bill is threefold. First, the Attorney General is now given discretion over which criminal complaints they choose to pursue. Second, if the Attorney General decides not to pursue the prosecution of a complaint, the original complainant have the option to prosecute the matter themselves. Finally, in both cases, the Attorney General or complainant can choose to hire another attorney to handle the prosecution, instead of acting as prosecutors themselves. The effect of this last change is more obvious with respect to the cases the Attorney General pursues, as in the past the Attorney General was required to act as the chief prosecutor in all those cases.

The reason for the first change is the dual observation that the Attorney General's office tends to get overwhelmed with complaints, and the fact that the requirement for the Attorney General to prosecute them all is not observed in practice. Some of these complaints are just outright spam, whereas for others it is possible that the Attorney General may not feel properly qualified to handle the prosecution themselves. The Attorney General is, in theory, required to act on all of them. Yet, in the past two years we have seen cases fall through the cracks either by being ignored for multiple terms until a point when they were no longer relevant, or by Attorney Generals flat out declaring they will not put all that much effort in pursuing them. I believe requiring the Attorney General to prosecute all cases is unsustainable and something we need to remove.

The second change is to compensate for the first. Should a member have their complaint denied by the Attorney General, they are now empowered to pursue it themselves. This helps address issues arising from unjustified decisions by the Attorney General to deny complaints. It also provides an avenue for better handling of offenses such as defamation within the criminal jurisdiction of our Court: the expectation is that in most such cases, the Attorney General will allow the complainant to pursue the prosecution themselves.

The third change is to correct an assymetry in our current legislation, which allows allows defendants to hire anyone as their lawyer, but requires the Attorney General to act as the primary ("chief") prosecutor themselves. Such a system is feasible in real life, where there is usually an army of full trained state prosecutors to handle the criminal docket. However, it is not sustainable in our case, where the Attorney General is all by themselves and usually even have trouble finding long-term deputies. By removing this requirement, we grant a lot of flexibility to the Attorney General's office in how they will handle complaints they choose to pursue, in the expectation that this flexibility will provide for a lot more effective prosecution.
 
hang on .... don't we already have a bill in this area being discussed by the regional Assembly? How to they compliment / contradict each other?

Presumably Roman's bill will come to vote before this one. What happens to this bill if his is passed?
 
The effect of this bill in particular is threefold. First, the Attorney General is now given discretion over which criminal complaints they choose to pursue. Second, if the Attorney General decides not to pursue the prosecution of a complaint, the original complainant have the option to prosecute the matter themselves. Finally, in both cases, the Attorney General or complainant can choose to hire another attorney to handle the prosecution, instead of acting as prosecutors themselves. The effect of this last change is more obvious with respect to the cases the Attorney General pursues, as in the past the Attorney General was required to act as the chief prosecutor in all those cases.
Click to expand...

I was heavily criticized as Attorney General for taking the position that I had the right to not pursue cases that I felt were without merit, and which I declined to prosecute.

It is humorous that some of those critics are now taking the exact position I took then. How ironic.
 
You were criticised for that position at the time because you didn't have the legal authority to do so.

This change is proposing that we give the AG that authority. In combination with allowing citizens to pursue complaints themselves then this could be a good change.
 
flemingovia:
hang on .... don't we already have a bill in this area being discussed by the regional Assembly? How to they compliment / contradict each other?

Presumably Roman's bill will come to vote before this one. What happens to this bill if his is passed?
Click to expand...
While it is my view that this bill makes having a civil jurisdiction and therefore Roman's bill redundant, the two bills are functionally perfectly compatible. Roman's bill regulates civil jurisdiction, this one regulates criminal one.

It is therefore a valid stance for one to support both bills. It means that they believe both that we should have a civil jurisdiction, and that the changes proposed here provide for better prosecution of criminal cases. Likewise, if Roman's bill passes, this bill will still be meaningful.
Grosseschnauzer:
I was heavily criticized as Attorney General for taking the position that I had the right to not pursue cases that I felt were without merit, and which I declined to prosecute.

It is humorous that some of those critics are now taking the exact position I took then. How ironic.
Click to expand...
There is a world of difference between the following two statements: "it is legal for the Attorney General to decline to prosecute cases," and "it should be legal for the Attorney General to decline to prosecute cases". As Abbey pointed out, you were criticized for claiming the former when it was not true, and not for claiming the latter.

Humorous or not, your point is irrelevant to this debate. Let's keep it to what is actually relevant.
 
Abbey Anumia:
You were criticised for that position at the time because you didn't have the legal authority to do so.
Click to expand...
Sure he did, he had the "I am Gross, I am the LAW!" authority.

But really, this bill, particularly paragraph 42, would fix most of the devastating flaws that Gross exposed during his time as Attorney General when he refusing to take any case. This amendment makes it so the Attorney General can not forcibly stop any trial they want and stand as a one man roadblock in the way of justice.
 
This is the biggest flaw in this law, I feel. Although we have had a number of fine Attorneys General who have respected the law and done their duty, others (mentioning no names) have considered themselves above the law and, being arrogant .... people, have dismissed all criticism.

I shudder to think what a person of such base character would do if they could legally act as a roadblock on our legal system.
 
Abbey Anumia:
You were criticised for that position at the time because you didn't have the legal authority to do so.

This change is proposing that we give the AG that authority. In combination with allowing citizens to pursue complaints themselves then this could be a good change.
Click to expand...
There was nothing in the constitution or the Legal Code that prohibited the AG from acting as I and others preceding me had, and that is shown by the fact that y'all then amended things to eliminate that authority.

And the Court's opinion at the time was a pure and simple power grab, having more of a political goal than a legal basis for it.

And as I recall, the civil case route could have been used and I suggested as much but they and the Court weren't interested then. It was much mre fun for y'all to use me as a guinea pig, which as you will notice, I refuse to be used as.
 
flemingovia:
This is the biggest flaw in this law, I feel. Although we have had a number of fine Attorneys General who have respected the law and done their duty, others (mentioning no names) have considered themselves above the law and, being arrogant .... people, have dismissed all criticism.

I shudder to think what a person of such base character would do if they could legally act as a roadblock on our legal system.
Click to expand...
Flem, y'all changed the law and then elected a series of AGs who did nothing. I succeeded a few that did nothing, and at least made a good faith effort to address them according to my best judgment of the matter. (There was a backlog going back for quite a while when I was elected.)

The fact that it did not suit others' political objectives (notice I'm not naming names either Flem) wasn't a consideration I considered appropriate. And as you might recall, no one wanted to run for the office, so I agreed to Eluvatar's request to run. I would have preferred to maintain my just started retirement from elective office, but I was asked to serve and did so. It was the last time I ever plan to run for an elected office in TNP, and I hope I'm not bothered with such a situation in the future.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And as I recall, the civil case route could have been used and I suggested as much but they and the Court weren't interested then. It was much mre fun for y'all to use me as a guinea pig, which as you will notice, I refuse to be used as.
Click to expand...
Oh? Could it? I thought you were the one whose recently been screaming from the highest hills that Civil Cases are illegal and violate the Bill of Rights.

Must be your clone or maybe that logic only applies when you're on trial, Gross.

Flem, y'all changed the law and then elected a series of AGs who did nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually, Gaspo did quite a lot, even got a conviction, something that is almost unheard of in TNP.
 
I think this bill has potential. Thanks r3n and Silly for putting the work into it.

The perception in the AG's office is that all cases are out of the picture, except the JAL case, which looks like it won't be finished this term. Would the public agree with that, or are there cases that you think could and should have been prosecuted this term and haven't been?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
And as I recall, the civil case route could have been used and I suggested as much but they and the Court weren't interested then. It was much mre fun for y'all to use me as a guinea pig, which as you will notice, I refuse to be used as.
Click to expand...
Oh? Could it? I thought you were the one whose recently been screaming from the highest hills that Civil Cases are illegal and violate the Bill of Rights.

Must be your clone or maybe that logic only applies when you're on trial, Gross.

Flem, y'all changed the law and then elected a series of AGs who did nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually, Gaspo did quite a lot, even got a conviction, something that is almost unheard of in TNP.
Click to expand...
BW, you were elected during my m4dical LOA as AG under the law that required the AG to prosecute all cases with or without merit, and from what I understand you did absolutely nothing, creating a backlog.

When I was AG, there was no such emasculation of the authority of thr AG to determine how to exercise the duties of the office, and I dealt with the backlog accordomhly.

You are not in a position to judge my term of office as AG.

As to opinions, they can change. The law governing our judicial process changed substantially from the time I was serving as AG, therefore, what I thought then, and what I think now are different. Not to mention the thousands and thousands of court decisions on the judicial review of whatever topics yhay put a veneer on things that are different than during my tenure.
 
Not to mention the thousands and thousands of court decisions on the judicial review of whatever topics yhay put a veneer on things that are different than during my tenure.
Click to expand...

I have told you a billion times not to exaggerate.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
BW, you were elected during my m4dical LOA as AG under the law that required the AG to prosecute all cases with or without merit, and from what I understand you did absolutely nothing, creating a backlog.
Click to expand...
Correct, and I was recalled for it, a move which I did not resist and don't try to justify myself against. I was inactive and for that I needed to be removed. I, however, do not tell lies to make what happened appear in a more favorable light and I never actively opposed Justice, although I admit my inactivity did create a problem. The difference being, I can admit my mistakes, Gross.

When I was AG, there was no such emasculation of the authority of thr AG to determine how to exercise the duties of the office, and I dealt with the backlog accordomhly.
Click to expand...

You didn't deal with the backlog at all, you attempted to dismiss every single case that came before you and never allowed a single one to go to trial during your entire tenure as AG. It would have been better if you were simply inactive, at least you would have been easily recalled had that been the case.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
When I was AG, there was no such emasculation of the authority of thr AG to determine how to exercise the duties of the office, and I dealt with the backlog accordomhly.
Click to expand...

You didn't deal with the backlog at all, you attempted to dismiss every single case that came before you and never allowed a single one to go to trial during your entire tenure as AG. It would have been better if you were simply inactive, at least you would have been easily recalled had that been the case.
Click to expand...
I did deal with the cases, I found they did not have merit or were otherwise flawed. And I believe then and still do in the principle that a prosecutor has the discretion to decide whether a random case has merit to proceed with or not. There's a big difference in doing things the way I did within a view of the authority of the Attorney General, and doing nothing as you did.
 
perhaps the time is right to focus back on the substance of the proposal now at the table rather than worrying about the failings of the past?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I did deal with the cases, I found they did not have merit or were otherwise flawed.
Click to expand...
Which was complete bollocks and everyone knows it. That's why this bill needs to be passed, so even if someone like Gross tries to filibusterer every single case thrown at him, the injuries party can still seek legal recourse, on their own, and it will be up to the three Justices, not the one Attorney General, to decide what cases have merit and which do not.

Personally, I motion for a vote. I don't think there is much more to talk about here.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
I did deal with the cases, I found they did not have merit or were otherwise flawed.
Click to expand...
Which was complete bollocks and everyone knows it. That's why this bill needs to be passed, so even if someone like Gross tries to filibusterer every single case thrown at him, the injuries party can still seek legal recourse, on their own, and it will be up to the three Justices, not the one Attorney General, to decide what cases have merit and which do not.

Personally, I motion for a vote. I don't think there is much more to talk about here.
Click to expand...
RA RULES SAY NO!

I think...
 
I warned against derailing the debate on this bill already from my third post. It's partially my fault for not policing the thread more actively.

In the slightly more than a page of posts, there is a single one that contains relevant commentary. I wanted to address that before moving to vote.
flemingovia:
This is the biggest flaw in this law, I feel. Although we have had a number of fine Attorneys General who have respected the law and done their duty, others (mentioning no names) have considered themselves above the law and, being arrogant .... people, have dismissed all criticism.

I shudder to think what a person of such base character would do if they could legally act as a roadblock on our legal system.
Click to expand...
Flem, the problem is that the AG's office tends to get more cases than they can handle. Even with an AG with the best intentions and excellent skill, I would say that handling in an effective manner more than two non-trivial cases per term is very optimistic. Prosecutions in NS courts in general are hard, and even more so in our court.

Currently, AGs do not have the right to deny cases. They do have the right to stall cases though (or even worse intentionally do a substandard job prosecuting them, but as far as I am aware this has only happened once in the recent past). Because they are overwhelmed with cases, AGs are forced to stall them.

The result of the above is that, even without an obstructionist AG, cases fall through the cracks. You can take a look at the AG's office, where there are cases pending since last May. (I should clarify at this point that these comments are not meant as criticism of the current AG.) Given how fast the circumstances of the game change, cases that have been pending for so long become very hard, if not practically impossible, to successfully prosecute. So, even though no AG explicitly denied to prosecute these cases, the end effect is the same.

So, there is a roadblock on our legal system with or without this bill. This bill however also provides a solution to remove both of these roadblocks, by allowing the complainants to prosecute cases themselves. Going back to the case of the roadblock you mentioned, the arrogant AG who flatly denies to prosecute any case: those filing the indictments have the legal recourse of prosecuting themselves, and they can hire any legal counsel they want to assist them in doing so. Likewise, in the case of the roadblock I mentioned and the one present in our current system, the AG being inundated with indictments: the AG can decline cases on the basis of lack of resources (time, workforce, etc.), knowing that it is still possible for those cases to be resolved in court in a just manner.
 
Flem, the problem is that the AG's office tends to get more cases than they can handle
Click to expand...

Not sure that is true. I can think of a few situations where there have been a lot of cases pending, but most of the time the AG's office does not seem to me to be swamped.

And I am not sure that workload is a valid reason for dismissing cases. If the AG is overworked, then appoint deputies.
 
Before moving to vote, I also wanted to draw some attention to the following from the version of the draft with the changes highlighted:

N.B. In the definition of "complainant" in the following section, I use the term "person". We may want to change this, depending on whom we want to allow to bring criminal complaints. Possibilities: Nations in the region, citizens, members of the RA, everyone (the use of "person" allows everyone).

36. Any person ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
Click to expand...
I can personally live with allowing everyone to be a complainant, but I am also open to the other choices. I do not have strong feelings on this.

With regards to the current situation, it is unclear who exactly can file an indictment. An argument could be made that, because of the way the Bill of Rights is worded, it would have to be at least everyone with a nation in TNP.
 
I am not sure I want the world and his wife being able to bring a complaint. I can just imagine the fun Insane Power and Cathyy would have had with that.

We try very hard in TNP to be fair to everyone. that is an endearing quality, but we also need certain protections to stop us becoming the doormat of the NS world.

I do not see why those unwilling to take the basic step of becoming a member of the REgional Assembly should have access to our judicial system.
 
Would it be reasonable to restrict complainants to citizens?

36. Any person citizen ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
Click to expand...
 
I've checked the Constitution and the Legal Code, and nowhere is the word "citizen" defined. It is used a few times, but it is not defined in either document.

There was a judicial definition under a prior Constitution, but the current Court overturned it, and replaced it with nothing.

So that needs to be addressed. I'd revive the use of the "residency" approach that was voided, but I wouldn't want to upset the clique that hates common sense in such things.
 
A citizen will be someone who has become a registered citizen. We have kept a list of registered citizens since December 2011, although it is interesting that such a concept does not exist in written TNP law. Since it is not written, it does not exist, therefore we need to find another word.

Personally, I like the idea of "Member of the Regional Assembly" or, if people want a broader constituency, "Nation resident in The North Pacific" or perhaps "Nation that has been resident in The North Pacific for 14 days" to prevent people moving a nation in just so that they can file a case.

But then how do we prove that a nation claimed is in fact the one bringing the case on the forum? I could claim any nation as my own, but that does not necessarily make it so.
 
I do not believe it would be legal to restrict the ability to bring cases to only RA-members, as the Bill of Rights grants itself to all nations in TNP - RA member or not, registered citizen or not.

Beyond that, I'm not sure it makes sense to restrict who can bring cases at all. If a non-TNPer has been harmed by a TNPer in a manner which is criminal under TNP law, they ought to be able to bring a case against the responsible party regardless of their citizenship status. Denying this could allow members of TNP to criminally mistreat others without fear of punishment.

Additionally, I see no particular harm to allowing non-citizens to bring charges. Legitimate complaints could be handled by the AG's office or passed on to hired counsel, and spurious ones would be turned down by the AG and likely dismissed by the court. The minor time cost of writing a dismissal post seems to me to be quite reasonable when compared to the alternative.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I've checked the Constitution and the Legal Code, and nowhere is the word "citizen" defined. It is used a few times, but it is not defined in either document.

There was a judicial definition under a prior Constitution, but the current Court overturned it, and replaced it with nothing.

So that needs to be addressed. I'd revive the use of the "residency" approach that was voided, but I wouldn't want to upset the clique that hates common sense in such things.
Click to expand...
It may not be defined, but it's been used several times in the Legal Code so at this point that seems like another issue for either the RA or judiciary to deal with.

I'd also be open to using "nation of The North Pacific". It may open us up to more complaints, but it ensures that all nations have legal recourse to challenge violations of the Bill of Rights (which is "for all Nations of The North Pacific").

How about this, then?

36. Any person nation of The North Pacific ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
Click to expand...
 
flemingovia:
Flem, the problem is that the AG's office tends to get more cases than they can handle
Click to expand...

Not sure that is true. I can think of a few situations where there have been a lot of cases pending, but most of the time the AG's office does not seem to me to be swamped.

And I am not sure that workload is a valid reason for dismissing cases. If the AG is overworked, then appoint deputies.
Click to expand...
I think the empirical evidence shows the opposite. At least during the one and a half year I have been in the RA, my own impression is that the AG's office has had a backlog of cases near constantly. The one time I recall the backlog being considerably trimmed, it was achieved by means of the AG actively pressing complainants to withdraw their complaints, and intentionally doing a substandard job prosecuting cases he did not consider important enough.

I also think that a few recent AGs have mentioned that they have difficulty finding members willing to serve as deputies.

I am just being pragmatic here. We are having cases dismissed in all but name because of the AG's office workload. By empowering the AG to dismiss them for real, at least we can provide the complainants with alternatives for eventually getting effective prosecution.

Regarding the definition of complainant, as both SillyString and I mentioned above, it is arguable (though not certain in my opinion) that the Bill of Rights requires us to allow at least all nations in the region to act as complainants. I have no problem using this as a replacement for the all-encompassing "person" currently in the definition. Here is an revised draft, using the exact wording proposed by Ator (and also used in the Bill of Rights and in one place in the Legal Code):

Attorney General Amendment Act

1. Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
2. The Attorney General will have discretion to manage the prosecution of all criminal cases brought before the Court, save those outlined below, and will also act as a legal advisor to the Delegate, and the Executive, of The North Pacific upon request.
Click to expand...

2. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
3. The Attorney General shall not be involved in the prosecution of any criminal case in which they are a defendant, a defense attorney, or a witness.
Click to expand...

3. Chapter 6, Section 6.7 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 6.7: The Attorney General
33. The election for the office of Attorney General shall be held during the Judicial Cycle.
34. Any deputy appointed by the Attorney General may not serve concurrently as either a Justice or a Temporary Hearing Officer.
35. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.
36. Any nation of The North Pacific ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
37. The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested.
38. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
39. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to manage the prosecution of a case, the Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case. If the Delegate is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in the case, then the Vice Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case.
40. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion of any case the management of which they have undertaken.
41. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to see to completion a pending case before the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over the managing of the prosecution.
42. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
43. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
44. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Click to expand...

4. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.
Click to expand...
 
Formal debate on this proposal has begun. It will end in five days, after which the Speaker will schedule for a vote to begin.
 
I would still greatly prefer that this read person, or simply nation, and not nation of the north pacific. As written, it disenfranchises ambassadors or other foreign dignitaries who are wronged under TNP law by TNP members.
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
1000w.jpg

Won't somebody please think about the visiting foreign dignitaries???​
 
Granting jurisdiction to foreign citizens would present all sorts of difficulties since they would not be entitled to the protections and limitations of the Bill of Rights, as shown by its preamble. That distinction may cause procedural issues for the Court because the Bill of Rights otherwise provides protections and limitations for the Nations of The North Pacific.
Whatever similar protections one would or might want to extend to foreign diplomats and representatives would require a separate law or be provided by treaty with each region. I don't think we can do so without a separate legal basis for such a standard.
 
SillyString makes a valid point. Many of the offenses listed in the Legal Code would affect people with an account on the forum and not nations in the region. If someone has the former but not the latter, as is frequently the case with foreign dignitaries, they are denied a level of protection by not being able to file complaints.

It is worth pointing out that there is precedent for this, see TNP v Empire of Narnia. The complainant in this case was Empress Astarial, Ambassador from Equilism.

Regarding the potential for abuse by outsiders mentioned by Flem, the Court already has the power to deny cases. I think that is a sufficient safeguard.

Regarding the points brought up by Grosse, note that most, if not all, of the rights and protections afforded by the Bill of Rights would apply to the defendant, not the prosecution or the complainant. Therefore, I am not sure this is a severe issue here. For all other cases, the Court can make a determination.

I am reverting the text back to "person". Here is the amended draft.

Attorney General Amendment Act

1. Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
2. The Attorney General will have discretion to manage the prosecution of all criminal cases brought before the Court, save those outlined below, and will also act as a legal advisor to the Delegate, and the Executive, of The North Pacific upon request.
Click to expand...

2. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
3. The Attorney General shall not be involved in the prosecution of any criminal case in which they are a defendant, a defense attorney, or a witness.
Click to expand...

3. Chapter 6, Section 6.7 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 6.7: The Attorney General
33. The election for the office of Attorney General shall be held during the Judicial Cycle.
34. Any deputy appointed by the Attorney General may not serve concurrently as either a Justice or a Temporary Hearing Officer.
35. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.
36. Any person ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
37. The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested.
38. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
39. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to manage the prosecution of a case, the Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case. If the Delegate is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in the case, then the Vice Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case.
40. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion of any case the management of which they have undertaken.
41. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to see to completion a pending case before the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over the managing of the prosecution.
42. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
43. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
44. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Click to expand...

4. No part of this bill shall take effect unless all parts take effect.
Click to expand...
 
r3naissanc3r:
SillyString makes a valid point. Many of the offenses listed in the Legal Code would affect people with an account on the forum and not nations in the region. If someone has the former but not the latter, as is frequently the case with foreign dignitaries, they are denied a level of protection by not being able to file complaints.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how many complaints are brought to the Court from nations outside of the North Pacific, but it might be prudent to be prepared for that contingency. Perhaps a new section could be crafted in the legal code dedicated to 'international law'? Of course, that might require creating a new department to deal with these cases (elected or appointed could be debated). That would free up the AG's office to deal with TNP-specific complaints.

Obviously, I'm just spitballing here. There are plenty of people here with considerably more insight into the crafting of laws. :shrug:
 
r3naissanc3r:
Regarding the points brought up by Grosse, note that most, if not all, of the rights and protections afforded by the Bill of Rights would apply to the defendant, not the prosecution or the complainant. Therefore, I am not sure this is a severe issue here. For all other cases, the Court can make a determination.
Click to expand...
You are overlooking that a foriegn nation might be a defendant in a civil or a criminal case.

Accordingly, what I raise is a potential issue. I am troubled by the jurisdictional problem the use of the word "person" is going to create, and this bill would be on stronger legal footing with the use of "nation" or "citizen," especially if the word "citizen" is defined in the Legal Code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top