Request for review: Power of court to subpoena evidence.

[Flemingovia]

Your honours, I request that the court review whether a presiding justice in a trial may, at the request of counsel, subpoena testimony or written evidence or logs from members of the Executive government and the Security Council that pertain to that specific criminal trial.

Should the court decide the such evidence cannot be subpoena'd, could the court consider whether this jeopardises an accused's right to a fair trial, since evidence that might prove or support their innocence may not be presented in the trial.

Given that my client in the current case under a short timetable with regard to presentation of evidence I would welcome a speedy consideration of this matter.

Aside: in most jurisdictions the duty of government departments to aid counsels in building their case is well established, as is the power of courts to subpoena documentation relevant to a trial.

 

[Eluvatar]

This request for review is accepted for consideration.

Unless I am given notice of intent to submit information and inability to do so within this time frame, I will expect any submissions to come within the next 3 days (prior to (time=1476205200) by your forum time). (Such notice should be posted here within the same time frame).

 

[Flemingovia]

Sorry to be a pain, but time is running out in the trial for the deposition of evidence, and I will need time to examine evidence before i deposit. Any chance I could have a response to my r4r request?

Thank you

 

[Eluvatar]

Indeed.

As a note, the court is deliberating on this matter.

 

[Eluvatar]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on the power of the Court to subpoena evidence

Opinion drafted by Eluvatar, joined by Gracius Maximus and Kialga​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by flemingovia.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Bill of Rights of the North Pacific, clause 7:

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.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Existence of a Duty to Disclose:

The Court had determined that in order for a nation to have equal and fair treatment and protection of law and due process of said law a duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence is in fact created by the Bill of Rights. The Court reviewed the Bill of Rights and the Request filed by Gaspo on this matter. The Court is in unanimous agreement that a duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence does in fact exist under the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court also notes that if in such a case the prosecution unknowingly posses exculpatory evidence when they are made aware of such evidence it must be disclosed to the Court and the Defense Council immediately.

The Court opines the following:

The Court has no statutory or explicit constitutional authority to order disclosure or testimony in general: this has occasionally been cause for concern, such as when Attorney General Gasponia sought to prosecute several members of the United Defenders League in the wake of the Warhammer 40000 incident.

In order for the Court to fulfill its bill-of-right mandated duties to run a fair trial, however, as in the Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Existence of a Duty to Disclose, the Court must and therefore may order the disclosure of information held by any branch of government necessary for a fair trial.

As the Court is best positioned to review the decisions of others rather than issue its own, it is appropriate for the Court not to issue such orders in the first instance. It is after a branch of the government has been presented with a request for information, and has chosen either to release it or to decline, that the Court is best positioned to review such a decision. The Court is entitled to treat a refusal to respond in a timely manner as a refusal of the request.

In general, exculpatory evidence may not be kept secret if a prosecution is to go forward. No nation may be convicted of any crime if exculpatory evidence exists and is not available to the defense. The revelation of such evidence after the fact, which could have been made available but was not, could well invalidate a conviction.

 

[Flemingovia]

i thank the court for the review.