Goyanes:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Hello, I have some questions.
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?
In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?
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?
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?
Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?
Thank You for your question Zyvet.
1. I think it's appropriate for the AG to use their general standing when a matter should be brought to court, but no citizen has utilized their standing.
Is this to say that all plausible unlawful actions ought be brought to the Court by the Attorney General, provided that a citizen has not already done so?
Goyanes:
2. I think the AG should only use their right to refuse prosecution when the complaint is visibly malicious or if there is overwhelming evidence showing that the person in question couldn't have committed the crime.
You have indicated in answer to other questions that there are circumstances where concerns other than evidential concerns ought to be taken into account in the decision of whether or not to prosecute, why not refer to them here? Are there any particular factors which might indicate a prosecution is not in the public interest?
Goyanes:
3. I would make sure to advise them that the act was illegal. I would most likely file charges afterwards depending on what would play out afterwards. The situation would not change for other government officials.
Would you consider avenues other than criminal prosecution? What would they be? Would there be any difference in the avenues depending on the official?
Might there not be particular concerns in relation to the Delegate and Vice Delegate, say, as compared to the Minister and Election Commissioner which could warrant some additional actions or precautions?
In the event of a criminal prosecution, might any difficulties arise as a consequence of your having became involved in giving advice prior to the action? Particularly, might difficulties may arise in relation to conflicts of interest in such a circumstance?
Would it be open to you 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?
Goyanes:
5. I think the current sentencing laws are fine, and as my counterpart Drasnia said, are open to flexibility for punishment depending on the severity of the case.
Are there any matters outside of the particular punishments prescribed and their breadth that might be worth considering in relation to sentencing and whether it ought to be reformed?
