Your honours, in light of events in the recent trial of New Kenya, I would like the court to review the question of whether the evidence (specifically the Secuirty Council logs) was properly handled prior to release to the defence and by extension whether those directly involved in a trial, whether for the defence of prosecution, should be involved in the handling or redacting of evidence before it is released as evidence or submitted to the opposing side.
During the trial of New kenya, Attorney General Sillystring involved herself in discussions in the Security Council as to whether evidence should be released to the defence, and how that evidence should be redacted before release to the defence. She did this in her capacity as a Security Council member, but while she was also the lead prosecutor in the case.
I do not feel that SillyString acted with any malice (otherwise I would be submitting charges of Gross Misconduct) but I DO feel this potentially sets a very dangerous precedent unless the court rules on acceptable handling of evidence.
I note that the Bill Of Rights states categorically that a defendant must be afforded a fair and impartial trial. If one side is able to redact evidence before release, that principle is undermined.
I also note that our laws recognise the principle of “conflict of Interest” and recusal, even though at present they specifically speak of it only relating to the conduct of a justice. But the principle is there.
I would be grateful if the court could rule concerning the proper handling of evidence prior to release, and specifically whether those with direct involvement in a case (not just justices) should recuse themselves where there is a potential conflict of interest.
It goes without saying that I feel that SillyString (definitely) and Eluvatar (probably) should recuse themselves from involving themselves at all in this Request for Review.
During the trial of New kenya, Attorney General Sillystring involved herself in discussions in the Security Council as to whether evidence should be released to the defence, and how that evidence should be redacted before release to the defence. She did this in her capacity as a Security Council member, but while she was also the lead prosecutor in the case.
I do not feel that SillyString acted with any malice (otherwise I would be submitting charges of Gross Misconduct) but I DO feel this potentially sets a very dangerous precedent unless the court rules on acceptable handling of evidence.
I note that the Bill Of Rights states categorically that a defendant must be afforded a fair and impartial trial. If one side is able to redact evidence before release, that principle is undermined.
I also note that our laws recognise the principle of “conflict of Interest” and recusal, even though at present they specifically speak of it only relating to the conduct of a justice. But the principle is there.
I would be grateful if the court could rule concerning the proper handling of evidence prior to release, and specifically whether those with direct involvement in a case (not just justices) should recuse themselves where there is a potential conflict of interest.
It goes without saying that I feel that SillyString (definitely) and Eluvatar (probably) should recuse themselves from involving themselves at all in this Request for Review.
