Darcania for Attorney General

You know me, you know what I can do. I am active and I know law, and I can properly pluralize Deputy Attorneys General. Since last election I won without even a campaign thread, I won't go too crazy with this one, especially for an office as unpopular as Attorney General.

Still, a place for any interested voters to ask me any questions is still a good thing, so ask away here.

And yes, I still do have my old campaign button, but I'm not a fan of campaign buttons unless it's a Delegacy run, so no, you can't have one. No exceptions. If you're desperate for campaign buttons, check the other threads in this forum.

No one has replied yet so I might ask a question

What will you do different as the Attorney General this time then you did last time as it?
and why should I vote for you?

Moristia:

No one has replied yet so I might ask a question

What will you do different as the Attorney General this time then you did last time as it?
and why should I vote for you?

Click to expand...

1) I hope to move forward with some projects I had started this term, namely to work with the Justices on a centralized table of past Court criminal cases for the Attorney General's office, Justices, and any interested Citizens to refer to, and a Request for Review regarding Court Ruling 44. I also hope to introduce someone new to the office as a Deputy, to get more people involved in the legal side of TNP.

2) I am active, I have some experience (not as much as, say, SillyString and Gracius Maximus, sure, but I still have a good amount), and a solid working knowledge of the law. Compare this to my opponent, who is not active (on the forums at least), has no experience in any capacity, and has little to no knowledge of the law.

Wow, following the status quo, typical

I have a number of questions, some of which I asked at the last election but which I did not ask you, on account of your lack of a campaign thread.

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Attorney General to utilise their general standing in relation to requests for review to bring a matter to the Court? Are there different considerations in relation to matters where individual residents, or classes of them, are likely to be considered to be affected parties as compared to matters where it is likely that no individual or class could be so considered?

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?

Midir:

Wow, following the status quo, typical

Click to expand...

yeah

Hello, Zyvet, I was wondering when it would be my turn for your questions.

Zyvetskistaahn:

I have a number of questions, some of which I asked at the last election but which I did not ask you, on account of your lack of a campaign thread.

Click to expand...

That's part of the reason I put this thread up, since last time nobody could ask me any questions.

Zyvetskistaahn:

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

Click to expand...

There are the obvious cases, like where a complaint is filed when no crime is committed or where the AG is legally unable to prosecute a case, but in my opinion there are other valid cases. The most obvious one is when there is insufficient evidence in the eyes of the AG to have a reasonable chance of a Guilty verdict. This is, naturally, subjective, and it is my belief the AG should work in the time frame before refusal to speak with the complainant and try to get as much evidence as possible, whether the case will go forward or not.

Zyvetskistaahn:

In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Attorney General to utilise their general standing in relation to requests for review to bring a matter to the Court?

Click to expand...

This may be a rather vague answer, and I apologize, but the simple answer is when a Court Ruling is needed, but establishing standing would be difficult for others. As an example, after the New Kenya trial Flemingovia filed a Request for Review regarding SillyString's (then the prosecutor) handling of evidence from her role in the Security Council, but his was dismissed due to lack of standing. He then asked Ash (then the Attorney General) to present it in his stead, and since it was an outstanding issue with the case and with court procedure, he decided to present it.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Are there different considerations in relation to matters where individual residents, or classes of them, are likely to be considered to be affected parties as compared to matters where it is likely that no individual or class could be so considered?

Click to expand...

The answer to the previous question should also answer this one, if I'm understanding correctly. Since the instances where I would use my automatic standing would necessitate there being difficulty establishing standing, and since the goal is for clarifications of laws and procedures that I believe necessary, considerations with regard to affected parties would not impact my decision to utilize my standing in any significant fashion.

Zyvetskistaahn:

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond?

Click to expand...

I would first give them another warning and a chance to undo their action to the best of their ability, then depending on the severity of that action I would either file a Request for Review or, in more extreme cases, consider filing a criminal complaint personally, or speak with the affected party should they wish to file a complaint. Since in this hypothetical, it is the Delegate breaking the law, I would of course speak with the Vice Delegate and the Security Council while I investigate and form the complaint, to give them ample warning should such a criminal complaint go forward.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?

Click to expand...

Yes, slightly: Should the Vice Delegate be the one breaking the law, I would discuss with the Delegate and the SC instead, and if the lawbreaker should be a Minister or an Election Commissioner, I would discuss it with the Delegate to give them time to find a replacement should that be necessary. In all the above cases I would naturally also speak with my Deputies, since one of them may have to take over the case since I could end up filing the complaint.

Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-up questions.

Darcania:

Zyvetskistaahn:

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

Click to expand...

There are the obvious cases, like where a complaint is filed when no crime is committed or where the AG is legally unable to prosecute a case, but in my opinion there are other valid cases. The most obvious one is when there is insufficient evidence in the eyes of the AG to have a reasonable chance of a Guilty verdict. This is, naturally, subjective, and it is my belief the AG should work in the time frame before refusal to speak with the complainant and try to get as much evidence as possible, whether the case will go forward or not.

Click to expand...

Outside of evidential concerns, would it be appropriate for the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute if, in their view, the public interest was against prosecution? If so, what factors might be relevant to deciding whether a prosecution ought go forward?

Darcania:

Zyvetskistaahn:

The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond?

Click to expand...

I would first give them another warning and a chance to undo their action to the best of their ability, then depending on the severity of that action I would either file a Request for Review or, in more extreme cases, consider filing a criminal complaint personally, or speak with the affected party should they wish to file a complaint. Since in this hypothetical, it is the Delegate breaking the law, I would of course speak with the Vice Delegate and the Security Council while I investigate and form the complaint, to give them ample warning should such a criminal complaint go forward.

Click to expand...

Do you consider any difficulties may arise in relation to conflicts of interest in such a circumstance, particularly in relation clauses 22-24 of Section 7.4 of the Code?

Would it be open to the Attorney General to use advice given to an official to support a criminal prosecution (for instance to prove that a violation of the law was doing knowing it was a violation)? Might the possibility of using such advice to support a prosecution have a negative effect, if it is permissible?

Zyvetskistaahn:

Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-up questions.

Click to expand...

[me] takes a deep breath...

Zyvetskistaahn:

Outside of evidential concerns, would it be appropriate for the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute if, in their view, the public interest was against prosecution? If so, what factors might be relevant to deciding whether a prosecution ought go forward?

Click to expand...

I haven't personally faced this issue myself, so I can't tell you how I'd act in that situation, but I can take my best guess how I'd act. It's difficult to define when the prosecution is against "the public interest", but in cases where it undoubtedly is against the public interest, I think it would still be appropriate; as an elected official, the Attorney General is beholden to the public interest, after all. I doubt I would take such a judgment lightly, however; I would speak with my Deputies and any other appropriate parties first, and would only dismiss on that ground under truly pressing circumstances.

As to the factors, I am unsure. I suppose it depends on how much damage such a prosecution would do to the community as a whole, and since criminal cases can be quite divisive and dramatic, there would have to be a whole lot of damage that couldn't be softened or contained to convince me to decide not to prosecute.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Do you consider any difficulties may arise in relation to conflicts of interest in such a circumstance, particularly in relation clauses 22-24 of Section 7.4 of the Code?

Click to expand...

Potentially, yes, I could see that happening. I doubt there would be any major difficulties, since I try to keep my Deputies up-to-date and involved with my work, so if I need to submit evidence of my own and act as a witness, transferring prosecution to a willing and capable Deputy shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Would it be open to the Attorney General to use advice given to an official to support a criminal prosecution (for instance to prove that a violation of the law was doing knowing it was a violation)?

Click to expand...

Yes. I would, however, hope to use that as a last resort, and seek other pieces of evidence to support such claims instead, due to the below.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Might the possibility of using such advice to support a prosecution have a negative effect, if it is permissible?

Click to expand...

Also yes. The possibility of having a conversation with the Attorney General end up in court against you will most likely make some people think twice about having that conversation in the first place, which is why I answered the previous question the way I did. This, however, is a downside of having the same office both support and check the Executive, and so the best I can do is try to limit it while still fulfilling the duties of my office.

Thank you for your answers, I have a further follow-up and an additional question.

Darcania:

Zyvetskistaahn:

Would it be open to the Attorney General to use advice given to an official to support a criminal prosecution (for instance to prove that a violation of the law was doing knowing it was a violation)?

Click to expand...

Yes. I would, however, hope to use that as a last resort, and seek other pieces of evidence to support such claims instead, due to the below.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Might the possibility of using such advice to support a prosecution have a negative effect, if it is permissible?

Click to expand...

Also yes. The possibility of having a conversation with the Attorney General end up in court against you will most likely make some people think twice about having that conversation in the first place, which is why I answered the previous question the way I did. This, however, is a downside of having the same office both support and check the Executive, and so the best I can do is try to limit it while still fulfilling the duties of my office.

Click to expand...

While it may be possible for the Attorney General to use advice they give to an official to support a criminal prosecution, do you think that it ought to be possible?

At present the law of evidence in TNP is contained almost wholly in the Rules of the Court and in rulings of the Court, should consideration be given to endeavouring to codify at least some of the law of evidence and add it to the Codified Law? Why or why not?

Zyvetskistaahn:

While it may be possible for the Attorney General to use advice they give to an official to support a criminal prosecution, do you think that it ought to be possible?

Click to expand...

I think it should be possible for the Attorney General to have that option, and it should be up to the Attorney General to exercise that under their discretion. Naturally enough, it is an option that they should consider carefully before using, but I believe the Attorney General, as an elected official, will have the wisdom to use the option only after careful consideration.

Zyvetskistaahn:

At present the law of evidence in TNP is contained almost wholly in the Rules of the Court and in rulings of the Court, should consideration be given to endeavouring to codify at least some of the law of evidence and add it to the Codified Law? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessary - the court rules, court rulings (which have the force of law), and Bill of Rights Article 7 already have it covered well enough in my opinion. However, I have not personally participated in a criminal trial as of yet, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Thank you for your answers, I have yet further follow-ups.

Darcania:

Zyvetskistaahn:

At present the law of evidence in TNP is contained almost wholly in the Rules of the Court and in rulings of the Court, should consideration be given to endeavouring to codify at least some of the law of evidence and add it to the Codified Law? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessary - the court rules, court rulings (which have the force of law), and Bill of Rights Article 7 already have it covered well enough in my opinion. However, I have not personally participated in a criminal trial as of yet, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Might there be general benefits to codifying the law which could apply in this area? Are there other areas, which are less well covered, which might benefit from codification particularly?

Darcania, I have no questions for you because I believe you know your stuff, you have offered great legal advice in the past, and you are possibly in danger of becoming the Zyvet of the AG's office. It goes without saying you have my vote.

It is not that my opinion differs from what Pallaith said -except, perhaps, by the time of activity we have had and how many things of the past we would use as an example- but as a voter I consider it necessary to emphasize your ability to answer somewhat sharp -but necessary- questions with such confidence. I extend my congratulations to you, Darcania.

No doubt this thread demonstrates your knowledge in legal matters, which in no way affects your rationality to make decisions at the discretion of the position you can exercise, when required to. You have my vote. Best of luck in this election cycle and, of course, in the near future!