Guy
TNPer
The Attorney-General's Office has been a little quiet quite recently, so I thought I'd run and let you know what I intend to do with it if elected (nothing shocking, I promise 
). There seem to be a variety of well-equipped people who are involved in the A-G's Office, so I hope that if elected, this Term will be a good one for the office.
Most importantly, I think what you plan to do is great and all that. In terms of actually doing it, I have a fair amount of experience in NS Courts. I'll make sure that whatever case we pick up, it's properly handled to its conclusion. If we need to provide advice to the Executive, it will be accurate and timely. Whatever undertaking we make, we'll follow through on.
The Office has three main functions: Its role in criminal prosecutions; its role in other cases; and in advising the Delegate/Executive.
The involvement of the A-G's Office in criminal prosecutions is very clearly spelt out, and is probably its most high-profile role. It has the power to initiate criminal prosecutions, as well as review complaints submitted to it. The Office will actively pursue information relating to possible breaches of law it becomes aware of, as well as obviously review complaints submitted to it.
The decision of whether or not to prosecute is obviously a very serious one. There haven't been any explicit guidelines issued by past Attorney-Generals as to how they'll approach their prosecutorial powers, the process is relatively straightforward. I think this is one of these rare occasions where RL guidelines fit the bill and are unusually instructive.
Whether the Office has initiated the review itself or has received a complaint, it would be the same: Gather all the information we can get, think of how we would present it in the Court as evidence, consider the arguments in law that could be made, and weigh all this up. The bottom line is that we don't want to waste anyone's time, but conversely, no prosecution is a sure-fire thing. A lesser consideration is that a prosecution will not be proceeded with if it would be contrary to the public interest. The crimes in the Code are all rather serious. But breaches can be merely technical in nature, or a prosecution may be redundant for various reasons, and so forth. On a somewhat separate point, while we would not be afraid of saying 'no' to a complainant if we believe a prosecution is not appropriate, we obviously have to be mindful of the fact that we do not have an exclusive power to prosecute.
The second function of the Attorney-General is their involvement in non-criminal cases. In particular, the Attorney-General has automatic standing to seek R4Rs. In particular, foresee the Office doing so in the case there is a disagreement regrding how our laws work which would affect the Executive branch, or the region more broadly. They are a useful tool to ascertain exactly what the law is.
I think the last role is rather straightforward. If the Executive so wishes, I would encourage it to approach me if it is ever uncertain regarding the status of the law. We would do all we can to come back with an answer explaining where the law is, including any potential uncertainties (and if so, whether there is room for clarifying that through the R4R process).
In addition, there is a bit of a role that lies outside the strict legal requirements, but is quite important: The A-G obviously holds a bit of weight regarding our laws and how they operate, being essentially the only legal officer apart from the Justices. If we see the need to, we may make recommendations to the RA regarding to the operation of the law, especially as it involves our criminal law.
This is way too long already, so thankfully I've covered everything I had wanted to. If you have any questions, ask away.
). There seem to be a variety of well-equipped people who are involved in the A-G's Office, so I hope that if elected, this Term will be a good one for the office.Most importantly, I think what you plan to do is great and all that. In terms of actually doing it, I have a fair amount of experience in NS Courts. I'll make sure that whatever case we pick up, it's properly handled to its conclusion. If we need to provide advice to the Executive, it will be accurate and timely. Whatever undertaking we make, we'll follow through on.
The Office has three main functions: Its role in criminal prosecutions; its role in other cases; and in advising the Delegate/Executive.
The involvement of the A-G's Office in criminal prosecutions is very clearly spelt out, and is probably its most high-profile role. It has the power to initiate criminal prosecutions, as well as review complaints submitted to it. The Office will actively pursue information relating to possible breaches of law it becomes aware of, as well as obviously review complaints submitted to it.
The decision of whether or not to prosecute is obviously a very serious one. There haven't been any explicit guidelines issued by past Attorney-Generals as to how they'll approach their prosecutorial powers, the process is relatively straightforward. I think this is one of these rare occasions where RL guidelines fit the bill and are unusually instructive.
Whether the Office has initiated the review itself or has received a complaint, it would be the same: Gather all the information we can get, think of how we would present it in the Court as evidence, consider the arguments in law that could be made, and weigh all this up. The bottom line is that we don't want to waste anyone's time, but conversely, no prosecution is a sure-fire thing. A lesser consideration is that a prosecution will not be proceeded with if it would be contrary to the public interest. The crimes in the Code are all rather serious. But breaches can be merely technical in nature, or a prosecution may be redundant for various reasons, and so forth. On a somewhat separate point, while we would not be afraid of saying 'no' to a complainant if we believe a prosecution is not appropriate, we obviously have to be mindful of the fact that we do not have an exclusive power to prosecute.
The second function of the Attorney-General is their involvement in non-criminal cases. In particular, the Attorney-General has automatic standing to seek R4Rs. In particular, foresee the Office doing so in the case there is a disagreement regrding how our laws work which would affect the Executive branch, or the region more broadly. They are a useful tool to ascertain exactly what the law is.
I think the last role is rather straightforward. If the Executive so wishes, I would encourage it to approach me if it is ever uncertain regarding the status of the law. We would do all we can to come back with an answer explaining where the law is, including any potential uncertainties (and if so, whether there is room for clarifying that through the R4R process).
In addition, there is a bit of a role that lies outside the strict legal requirements, but is quite important: The A-G obviously holds a bit of weight regarding our laws and how they operate, being essentially the only legal officer apart from the Justices. If we see the need to, we may make recommendations to the RA regarding to the operation of the law, especially as it involves our criminal law.
This is way too long already, so thankfully I've covered everything I had wanted to. If you have any questions, ask away.
