Zyvetskistaahn for Justice

[Zyvetskistaahn]

[me]for Justice​

Hello, I'm running for the office of Justice yet again (should I win, this will be my fourth term). I've been Chief Justice the last two terms, and I've been handling the Court's declassification process in that capacity, and I was a moderating Justice a request for review two terms ago and have participated or made decisions in relation to a number of requests for review brought this term.

I also have experience of TNP law outside of being a Justice, having served as Speaker, which necessitates an understanding of the laws and rules around citizenship and around the Assembly, particularly, and as an Election Commissioner (both on an ex officio and appointed basis) prior to the law establishing the standing Election Commission, which has needed an understanding of the particular laws governing those elections and how to interpret them, though the law in that area has changed since.

Other than the prospect of further cases and, perhaps, finishing with the cases presently on the docket, I continue to hope to make some changes with respect to the rulings page to hopefully make it less unwieldy, though I admit that the delays in getting this done are at least partly due to myself.

I would also like to see about establishing new templates for indictments and for FOI reviews, in the same way that requests for review have their own templates. It is my intention to introduce these together with some Rules reforms which I have referred to in previous campaigns and some which I have developed as a result of my experiences this term. These include: establishing a process for FOI reviews; codifying the mandatory criminal disclosure procedure created by Court judgments a couple of years ago; a clarification to the request for review rules around withdrawing requests; a reform of the process for dealing with reviews/trials being suspended pending appeal/review in order to add an exception for frivolous and solely dilatory appeals/reviews (I should say, that is not a comment on the current reviews; while it is the recent reviews which drew me to this, I do not consider those reviews frivolous or solely dilatory); and adding an express provision for notifying request for review respondents.

The Court, in the recent term, has been working towards these rule changes (and I anticipate, should I be returned, would be able to move to consulting with affected persons (such as the AG) quite soon), however, I am not moving forward with them in the remainder of this term, so as to make my successors have to immediately reverse changes they may disagree with. In this process, I would like to take a leaf from the Election Commission's book and, after consulting more privately with persons like the AG, to present the draft changes to the Assembly for comment; naturally, were my fellow Justices to disagree with such a process I would defer to them.

In my last two campaigns I was asked about court matters that I've been a part of, so I'm going to link here to the things I have previously linked to in response, namely, my briefs in the Election Commissioner Oaths review and the Speaker's Power to End Debate review; I'm also going to link to the one opinion of the Court which has been produced during my time on it, in relation to the Speaker's Power to Extend Voting Periods. I can also add my decision to refuse a request for review and the briefs I have filed in relation to the ongoing requests for review: here and here.

I am happy to answer questions on most topics, with the notable exception of those which relate to the ongoing proceedings (while the Court Rules do not, strictly, extend to here, it would in my view be contrary to the principles behind them to engage in public discussion of an ongoing matter in which I am involved as a Justice).

 

[Siwale]

Chapter 2: Requests for Review
5. The Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within seven days after the end of the period for submitting briefs.

What are your thoughts on this clause of the Court Rules and Procedures? Is there any value to setting a theoretical goal for the court? Or would it be better to just remove this clause entirely since it sets unrealistic expectations for the court?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Chapter 2: Requests for Review
5. The Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within seven days after the end of the period for submitting briefs.

What are your thoughts on this clause of the Court Rules and Procedures? Is there any value to setting a theoretical goal for the court? Or would it be better to just remove this clause entirely since it sets unrealistic expectations for the court?

Broadly, I like the clause. I think, perhaps, the period could be made slightly longer and still maintain the purpose of encouraging timely rulings, but the Rule is worded so as to be quite clear that it is aspirational, so I do not see much problem in it being "broken".

There is value in having some deadline, even a soft one as the Rule prescribes, for the Court to be encouraged to work towards and, also, for the public at large to judge the Court against.

I do not believe that it sets unrealistic expectations, it is possible to rule within the timeframe given (and I have done so myself) and, in any event, it is not strict. Alteration to be slightly longer may be appropriate, in order to give greater leeway for particularly complex cases, but I do not think removal is needed. Were it the case that the Court was rushing to issue decisions before the end of the timeframe, my opinion might differ, but that is evidently not the case.

 

[Siwale]

Broadly, I like the clause. I think, perhaps, the period could be made slightly longer and still maintain the purpose of encouraging timely rulings, but the Rule is worded so as to be quite clear that it is aspirational, so I do not see much problem in it being "broken".

There is value in having some deadline, even a soft one as the Rule prescribes, for the Court to be encouraged to work towards and, also, for the public at large to judge the Court against.

I do not believe that it sets unrealistic expectations, it is possible to rule within the timeframe given (and I have done so myself) and, in any event, it is not strict. Alteration to be slightly longer may be appropriate, in order to give greater leeway for particularly complex cases, but I do not think removal is needed. Were it the case that the Court was rushing to issue decisions before the end of the timeframe, my opinion might differ, but that is evidently not the case.

What would you consider to be an ideal time-frame for the court to deliver an opinion? Every case is unique, but what would you change the period to in the CRaP?

 

[Deropia]

Hey Zyvet, great platform! I just have a quick question, which I have posing to all candidates.

The Penal Code provides sentencing options to the Court, providing for bans/suspension of basic right for either a 'finite amount of time' or 'for whatever duration the court sees fit'. This gives the Court a great amount discretion when it comes to the sentencing of those convicted of crimes. I realize that making changes to the Penal Code falls within the realm of the Regional Assembly, however, what would your opinion be regarding the use of minimum/maximum sentences?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Broadly, I like the clause. I think, perhaps, the period could be made slightly longer and still maintain the purpose of encouraging timely rulings, but the Rule is worded so as to be quite clear that it is aspirational, so I do not see much problem in it being "broken".

There is value in having some deadline, even a soft one as the Rule prescribes, for the Court to be encouraged to work towards and, also, for the public at large to judge the Court against.

I do not believe that it sets unrealistic expectations, it is possible to rule within the timeframe given (and I have done so myself) and, in any event, it is not strict. Alteration to be slightly longer may be appropriate, in order to give greater leeway for particularly complex cases, but I do not think removal is needed. Were it the case that the Court was rushing to issue decisions before the end of the timeframe, my opinion might differ, but that is evidently not the case.

What would you consider to be an ideal time-frame for the court to deliver an opinion? Every case is unique, but what would you change the period to in the CRaP?

Ideally, most cases would be decided within the current time frame. I would think that an extension to two weeks may be appropriate, though I should stress again that I do consider that there are cases which can appropriately require deviation (and, indeed, my preference would be for deviation over rushing an opinion). I think a substantial extension beyond two weeks, for instance to three, would be too great; by that point resolving a request for review would take around a quarter of the Court's term, accounting for the brief period and any deliberations as to whether to allow the request.

Hey Zyvet, great platform! I just have a quick question, which I have posing to all candidates.

The Penal Code provides sentencing options to the Court, providing for bans/suspension of basic right for either a 'finite amount of time' or 'for whatever duration the court sees fit'. This gives the Court a great amount discretion when it comes to the sentencing of those convicted of crimes. I realize that making changes to the Penal Code falls within the realm of the Regional Assembly, however, what would your opinion be regarding the use of minimum/maximum sentences?

I did, some months ago, express views in connection with a proposal for penal reform in the Assembly and my views have not changed since that time. I consider that controlling judicial discretion in sentencing is a task the Assembly ought to set itself to, while I do not think that sentencing power has been misused in TNP, that does not seem to me to be a sufficient reason to retain such broad discretion.

In relation to minimum sentences, I tend to disapprove of them, at least to the extent that they are "hard" minimums, as I tend to think that the harm caused by arbitrary mercy is, broadly, lesser than the harm caused by arbitrarily lengthy punishment and would prefer to leave open the possibility of sentences to recognise cases of relatively low culpability, rather than being forced to unnecessarily limit the ability of players who have made an error to engage in TNP again. Maximums, I am favourable of, at least in relation to the offences currently punishable for a definite length of time, so as to avoid the potential for the setting of notionally definite sentences that are so long that they are effectively indefinite.