[Private] TNP v Whole India

Per discussion on Discord and my own thoughts of the matter, I believe that accepting the indictment should be done.
 
I also agree the acceptance of the indictment. I have announced its acceptance and appointed Lady Raven Wing to moderate and Dreadton to be Standby Hearing Officer. Below I include the logs of discussions of this matter prior to acceptance of the indictment.

December 14, 2019

[4:53 AM]
Lady Raven Wing: We do have an indictment of Whole India @The Bestest of Persons @Zyvet
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6989211/page-6#post-10293662
The North Pacific
Court Filings
The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.
[4:54 AM]
Lady Raven Wing: Thoughts?
[5:25 AM]
Lady Raven Wing: I have to express confusion at what is meant in the 4th paragraph of the summary, but it could be me
[7:44 PM]
Zyvet: <.<
[8:38 PM]
Zyvet: My sense is that it is to mean that the Attorney, having seen the TG sent by Red Back, noticed it was sent prior to the posting of the campaign by the proposed Defendant and that from this one can deduce that the telegram posted is false, as one can surmise that Red Back would not ask the Defendant to stop a campaign that had not started
[8:41 PM]
Zyvet: Does the first link function for you?
[8:44 PM]
Zyvet: To me it does not display as being archived. The forum thread proper is still there and presumably the reason for the archive is because of the risk of the Defendant editing the posts in it, but it does not seem to have been archived?
[8:50 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Gotcha, makes more sense that what I had puzzled out
[8:50 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: The first link to Wayback does look archived
[8:55 PM]
Zyvet: Hmm
[8:59 PM]
Zyvet: Am I missing something, because I don't actually think that that TG is exhibited?
[9:01 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: I don't think so either, which was a bit of my confusion
[9:14 PM]
Zyvet: Hmm, the first link seems to be working for me now
[9:33 PM]
Zyvet: So, in terms of approaching whether or not to accept the indictment, it seems to me that the question is whether, on the evidence presented, a trial is merited, in the sense that if the evidence were found to be true, the Defendant would be guilty in, essentially, the way alleged by the Attorney. Broadly, I think at this stage it is appropriate to accept the evidence at face value, unless it is obviously implausible, and not to consider what may be put forward in defence. That makes sense to me, as at this stage there is no involvement of the Defendant under the rules, it fits, broadly, with RL and other regional courts I am familiar with, and it is more or less what the Advisory Opinion (<.<) has to say on the matter.

As to the particular offence: clearly intentional deception must be alleged; it seems to me that the Deputy Attorney's summary is one alleging falsehood, rather than omission; both "for some benefit" and "to damage another individual" are alleged as the reasons.
[9:39 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: I would agree with that, the summary/evidence as presented & the crime alleged do seem to be in order enough for a trial
[9:48 PM]
Zyvet: I think that is my view as well.

The deception alleged and evidenced is the claim that Red Back warned the Defendant to leave the election. I think that that is clearly a claim as to a fact, either Red Back gave such warning or did not; as to whether it is material, I think that, if someone were to accept it as true, it arguably is, in that it can reasonably be expected to affect their behaviour to Red Back or the Black Hawks; as to plausibility, I think that there is some difficulty, given that the reactions in the thread exhibited are sceptical, but it seems to me to be a matter for argumentation.

The falsehood is the same as the deception and its falsity is evidenced by the statements of Red Back. I think, logically, if one accepts Red Back's statements and screenshots as true, it follows there must be falsehood.

As to intention, I think it follows from the same evidence as above that, if the screenshots are true, there was no warning and a conclusion that the statements of the Defendant were intentionally false and deceptive follows necessarily.

As to the reasons, these can be established by reasonable expectation and it seems to me that it can be reasonably expected that damage would follow if someone accepted the statements as true and, in any event, as it is a matter that can be established by argumentation, it seems appropriate for trial.

I am unsure on the alleged reason of "for some benefit". I do not think the summary has sufficiently cogently explained that point. However, that does not matter, as I am satisfied that the offence can be proven on the basis of damage to another.
[9:52 PM]
Zyvet: Indictments are a matter for acceptance by the Court as a whole, so I will wait for @The Bestest of Persons, though we have a majority. Perhaps we will be persuaded.

If the indictment is accepted, I have to appoint a moderating justice and an SHO, do either of you wish to moderate or have views on an appropriate SHO?

Also, @Lady Raven Wing, though I am not sure I think it necessary, it may be appropriate to consider whether any conflict of interest arises in the circumstances. In any event, it may be raised in the trial.
[10:11 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: I would be somewhat interested in being moderating justice - as to potential SHOs, COE has relevant legal experience I understans, Angshire has previously expressed interest in being a Justice (see the last election)

In regards to conflict of interest, I don't believe one arises in the present situation due to RB's essential status as a witness at best in the indictment/potential case. If the situation were to turn around such that RB's statements were the ones in question, then the case for conflict of interest (or appearance of such at least) is much better, but that isn't presently the case.
[10:16 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Also posted in the forumside thread I see you made
[10:20 PM]
Zyvet: As to potential SHOs, I was thinking either COE or Sil, but I think that the SHO actually having their nation flying the TBH flag might be a step too far :stuck_out_tongue: and on reviewing the thread Sil has already commented on the TGs posted by the Defendant, saying they are forged.

I would think Angshire would be interested, but as he is on the external affairs committee, I think he is actually precluded from serving, due to the restriction on service in different branches. Siwale seems a possibility, presuming that they would be fine with the prospect of extra work.
[10:21 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Sorry, to be more explicit I mean that I don't consider knowing (& working with elsewhere) a potential witness to be a conflict of interest, given the sheer inevitability of that
[10:21 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Ah, good point on COE
[10:23 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: And you'd be correct on Angshire, they are a government official and thus precluded
[10:26 PM]
Zyvet: Dreadton also, perhaps, given he is fresh off the court?
[10:26 PM]
Zyvet: Or, freshish
[10:26 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Was just about to suggest them actually
[10:26 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Siwale does also look good, if they're willing to do the work
[10:27 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: As you mentioned
[10:42 PM]
Zyvet: Bootsie, SillyString and Elu also are recent members of the Court who seem good options to me, though I understand SillyString and Elu to be busy RL bees... I think I am minded to ask Dreadton and will see whether he wishes it
[10:50 PM]
Zyvet: (I should say, I am also minded to appoint you to moderate)
[10:55 PM]
Zyvet: Dreadton has indicated he is willing to be SHO, so I think I shall appoint him, if the indictment is accepted. He indicated he is also willing to be counsel for the Defendant, if appointed counsel is needed. Obviously, he cannot be both and the matter of appointing counsel is a bridge to be crossed later.
[11:01 PM]
Lady Raven Wing: Indeed

December 15, 2019

[3:10 AM]
The Bestest of Persons: Sorry about the delay i forgot to mention it here but i suffered an injury to my right hand and am afk for most of the time until it heals. Hold on a bit for me to get upto speed.
[3:19 AM]
The Bestest of Persons: @Zyvet I concur on face value the case should be accepted by the court.
[3:19 AM]
The Bestest of Persons: Also I think COE would be a poor choice due to his activity as of recently then anything else. He just abandoned the office of Election Commissioner.
[3:26 AM]
The Bestest of Persons: And yeah, these review boards really constitute a brain drain in the potential candidates. Cuz I would have suggested Bootsie or Marcus. But both of them are committee members. Dreadton might be a safe bet.
[3:30 AM]
The Bestest of Persons: I would offer to be Moderating Justice but I work in a holiday effected industry and will be pulling a lot of double shifts over the next two weeks.
[1:16 PM]
Zyvet: Right, as we are agreed, I shall forthwith accept the indictment and make appointments of you @Lady Raven Wing to moderate and Dreadton to be SHO.
EDIT: NB: "The Bestest of Persons" is Lord Lore
 
Last edited:
I've put up a basic trial schedule, based on 5 day periods for all but Evidence Submission, which has 6 (so it fits with the given Christmas recess and doesn't split Argumentation).
 
Honestly, if they want us to compare it to the trial of Madjack then it should be taken into account that Madjack was convicted on Conspiracy to commit and not Fraud, which is supposed to be a lesser version. So using it as a direct comparison then the sentence should be enhanced from 90 Days Voting Suspension and 282 Day Election Suspension which is the precedent set for Conspiracy to Commit Fraud set by TNP vs Madjack.

Unless the court wishes to treat Fraud as a lesser offense then Conspiracy to Commit Fraud.
 
Madjack did also have conspiracy to commit gross misconduct on there, don't forget.

However, I do agree that the the recommendations are distinctly low-balling a decent estimate of time.

Presuming then that this is posted before the next General, I think that a prohition on running for the next two General & next 2 Judicial elections is warranted, or at least 1 of each. Voting rights, I think the 3 months of voting right suspension or so is good.

I recognize generally that this isn't as high as for MJ, but I believe the aggravating circumstances in the respective cases (possibility of NPO blackmail in MJ's case) are more dire in MJ's than here, and thus a sentence of equal or shorter is fine.
 
I agree with the parties as to the nature of the punishment, it seems to my mind right that a restriction on voting and holding office should follow in this case.

While I think that an agreed sentencing recommendation must carry significant weight, given that it likely formed part of the Defendant's decision in pleading and there would, to my mind, be unfairness in excessive deviation, and while I also think that the Court should generally be slow to take a more punitive approach than that proposed by the Attorney, I do think that in this case the sentence proposed seems inadequate to do justice in this case.

It strikes me that the Court is bound, by law, to treat fraud as more serious than conspiracy to commit the same, give Chapter 2, clause 7 of the Legal Code ("7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime."), so I do not think that the comparison to TNP v Madjack is wholly apt. However, I do think that it is right, as noted above, that the sentence here can be lesser than in Madjack, given the different factual circumstance and that the sentence in that case also took into account another offence.

That in mind, I think I am of the view that the appropriate sentence here is one that falls somewhere between the sentence in Madjack and the recommendation given. It seems to me that the nature of the attempted deception in Madjack was more serious, having regard to its clandestine nature, the influence it could have given to a foreign power, and the falsehood that would have been targeted at El Fiji Grande in that case. Nevertheless, the Defendant in this matter has leveled a serious accusation against an individual, though they have not committed a prior offence they do not have comparable positive good character to that in Madjack, they sought initially to defend the accusation (necessitating the target of the falsehood giving evidence and entertaining the possibility, as a successful defence would have necessitated the Court concluding the target to be giving false evidence, of that target being further tarred), and there is no suggestion of remorse.

Taking all of that together, I think that my view, in broad terms is for a four month suspension on standing for elected office (covering both of the next regular elections and also any special election that could occur for the offices elected at the January election) and a two month suspension on voting.
 
I would say 45 days of voting Suspensions. And a Suspension from running for elected office until March 1st, 2020 to keep in line with previous precedent of setting an end date for election suspension instead of giving an amount of days.
 
I would be minded to express the final order in terms of specific dates (indeed, specific times).

It seems we have a fairly wide range as to the length of a voting suspension, though we seem agreed that the recommendation of the parties is too low, with: 45 days (Lore); 60 days (myself); and 90 days (LRW). I think that I am, if there is to be movement on my position, more inclined to move upwards than downwards. My reason for that is from TNP v Madjack, in which the Court's reason for a relatively short restriction on voting rights was, essentially, the Defendant's positive good character which, absent a need for protection of the region which was present in the election restriction, justified a lesser sentence than the Court would otherwise have imposed.

Here, that positive good character is not present, indeed, almost the only involvement in public life in the region the Defendant has had is the offence, its circumstances, and this trial. While there were two offences in Madjack and the offence in that case would have been more serious than in this (had it been completed), this offence has been completed and does involve a serious accusation, such that I don't think a starting point would be too far from the finishing point in Madjack.

From that, there is relatively little basis on which to reduce the sentence, in effect there is only the ordinary good character that comes from lacking previous conviction and a (very limited, given it was after the injured party had had to give evidence) credit for pleading guilty. The Defendant's newness, to my mind, carries very little weight when set against the reality of the offence, a clear lie targeting an innocent party in order to gain political advantage; it is a cynical offence, not a naive one. There is a lack of remorse, however, I don't think I am with the prosecution in saying this is an aggravating factor, to my mind remorse, where present, mitigates and otherwise does not come into the matter.

So, on the whole I think that the offence itself would fall somewhere around where the Court ended up in Madjack, that is to say 90 days. From there, a reduction, due to the above mitigation, but not an especially large one and a reduction of around a third from what would be the sentence with no mitigation is, to my mind, probably the furthest I could go. I think, if it would help in reaching agreement, I could be persuaded I am even then giving the mitigation too much weight.

On the elections, I think we are, if not agreed, a bit closer with: until the March Judicial Election (Lore); until the May General Election (me); until at least the May General Election and at most the September General Election (LRW). I think I am more or less where I think appropriate.

I think in relation to this element of the sentence, there is the most difference between this case and Madjack. In Madjack there was a substantial consideration of the risk to the region that had been posed by the Defendant's actions and the susceptibility to blackmail it would have left the Defendant open to, had the plan in that case succeeded. By comparison, there is no real risk posed by the Defendant's actions which requires a restriction as lengthy as that present in Madjack.

As to the starting point, I think it makes sense when considering election restrictions to work by reference to the periods for elections. As noted above, I do consider it serious (though less so than in Madjack) and I think regard must be had to the fact that an aim of the Defendant was to benefit his campaign to run to be Delegate. That being so, I think that my starting point is a sufficient period to cover the next two general elections.

Applying the same mitigation as noted above, I think that a reduction is warranted, but it seems to me the period should still cover the next Judicial election and any prospect of special election to the offices elected at the general election. In that, I am quite sure.
 
I am fine with until after the May General, as I believe we are too near (and indeed, considering this was a campaign for) the January General for me to be comfortable in limiting the prohibitions on the General elections to just that. In my mind then, it'd work out to removal from a full Judicial & General, and confirmation of what everyone already knows with the January.

Regarding voting rights suspension, I am fine with anywhere between the 45-90 so far proposed, and would be alright with Zyvet's proposed 60.
 
Wow I got to say I had a moment of temporary insanity. In my mind I was proposing the middle ground between LRW and Zyvet but I completely messed up the math in my head. I concur with the May 1st, 2020. And I was trying to say 75 days for voting suspension but I would be fine with 60 if we are all in agreement.
 
I think that, though you are both prepared to lower to 60, given you both have as your preference a higher figure, it would make sense for my movement to be upwards and I think 75 would be appropriate.

On the elections, my sense is that Lore (if I understand correctly) and I think until the May election but not including that election would be appropriate, whereas LRW would prefer to include the May election. While I think comparison with the Madjack case is somewhat murkier on this element of the sentence, the election restriction there was 2 of each judicial and general elections, given that the underlying nature of the offence was less serious and that there is not the same risk to the region here, I think the penalty should be quite a bit lower and (not to discredit our own office) I do not think leaving out a judicial election reduces the penalty all that much. I can see LRW's point that the reality of the situation is that the Defendant has effectively been disqualified from this upcoming election by their own action and maybe I am underestimating the significance of a longer prohibition covering a second judicial election (which I suppose would also cover special election until then), but even so I am unsure about including the May election itself. However, if Lore would do so, I would move rather than cause disagreement on the point.
 
I have drafted a sentencing order along the lines of what I have thusfar posted with a voting rights suspension of 75 days. I have not added in the date for the election restriction as yet. It is, as I imagine may be expected from my past drafting, somewhat longer than previous sentencing orders have been. Naturally, if there are suggestions for alterations (or if neither of you want to go with it), do say.
court_seal.png
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Y and Z​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Dinoium:
Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors

  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Deropia:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation



  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Madjack:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.

Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.

Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.

The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 12, and Chapter 2, clause 1, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Whole India, be punished for Fraud by:

  1. A suspension of voting rights for a period of 75 days; and,
  2. A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before [date].
The Defendant has committed Fraud, a serious crime. They did this by falsely claiming that an innocent nation had attempted to intimidate them in order to stop them running in the upcoming general election. They did so in order to damage the reputation of that innocent nation and to further their own prospects at that election.

In committing the crime, the Defendant, as well as making the false claim, also produced images purporting to show the attempted intimidation. Those images were produced by the Defendant to the Court, though the Defendant's plea was entered before they were authenticated. The conclusion the Court must draw from the Defendant's plea is that those images were doctored.

The Court has considered the recommendation made by the parties in this matter, but is driven to the conclusion that the recommendation does not produce a proportionate punishment. The Court notes the comparison made to the case The North Pacific v Madjack. While the Court considers the case is useful, the Court also bears in mind that there were two crimes being sentenced on that occasion, that the crime in that case was of greater seriousness and that there would have, had it been successful, be greater risk to the region from the crime. However, the Court also notes that final sentence reached in that case was with the Defendant having the benefit of substantial evidence of positive good character in contributing to the region, an early plea, and remorse: the starting point would clearly have been higher.

In this case, the crime is a complete one and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same and so the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence in Madjack.

This Defendant does have the mitigation of lacking previous conviction. They also entered a plea, which is to their benefit, though the Court does consider that this mitigation must be limited by the fact that it was done only after the injured party had been required to give evidence and after doctored images were submitted to the Court. Further, they are a new nation, though, again, the Court does consider the effect of this to be limited when set against the plainly deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Defendant. The Court does not consider that the lack of remorse constitutes an aggravating factor, but clearly it cannot benefit the Defendant.

Taking the above together, the Court considers that a suspension of voting rights for 75 days and a restriction on being a candidate in elections until [date] is the proportionate punishment for the crime.
 
The sentencing order you've written looks good to me.

In regards to election suspension, I can sign off on not including May General is needs be, though my preference is for including it.
 
In this case, the crime is a complete one and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same and so the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence in Madjack.
Click to expand...

Having reread the draft, the above wording felt a little off to me, so I have moved it around a little bit and added a little bit of preface:

When accounting for the fact that the starting point in Madjack must have been significantly higher than the finish and that this crime is complete and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same, the Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence reached in Madjack.
Click to expand...

Views?

Also, in relation to the voting suspension, as well as putting in the number of days, I do wonder whether it would be worthwhile, for the convenience of the Speaker and the Election Commission, to include the day it expires (though, obviously that depends when we hand down the order).
 
The more specific clarification is good, fits better with the paragraph before.

In regards to voting suspension, I don't think it particularly matters whether we give the ending date outside of courtesy.
 
I'm grateful to LRW for being pragmatic on the timing of the election restriction. Below is a final version of the draft order, with the date added in; I have also added the formal points at the end about notification, appeal, and closing of the case which were omitted from the previous draft. I have not included an expiry date for the voting suspension. As Moderating Justice, it is, of course, for LRW to hand down the order.
court_seal.png

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Lady Raven Wing and Lord Lore​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Dinoium:
Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors

  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Deropia:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation



  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Madjack:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.

Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.

Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.

The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 12, and Chapter 2, clause 1, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Whole India, be punished for Fraud by:

  1. A suspension of voting rights for a period of 75 days; and,
  2. A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before 1 May 2020.
The Defendant has committed Fraud, a serious crime. They did this by falsely claiming that an innocent nation had attempted to intimidate them in order to stop them running in the upcoming general election. They did so in order to damage the reputation of that innocent nation and to further their own prospects at that election.

In committing the crime, the Defendant, as well as making the false claim, also produced images purporting to show the attempted intimidation. Those images were produced by the Defendant to the Court, though the Defendant's plea was entered before they were authenticated. The conclusion the Court must draw from the Defendant's plea is that those images were doctored.

The Court has considered the recommendation made by the parties in this matter, but is driven to the conclusion that the recommendation does not produce a proportionate punishment. The Court notes the comparison made to the case The North Pacific v Madjack. While the Court considers the case is useful, the Court also bears in mind that there were two crimes being sentenced on that occasion, that the crime in that case was of greater seriousness and that there would have, had it been successful, be greater risk to the region from the crime. However, the Court also notes that final sentence reached in that case was with the Defendant having the benefit of substantial evidence of positive good character in contributing to the region, an early plea, and remorse: the starting point would clearly have been higher.

When accounting for the fact that the starting point in Madjack must have been significantly higher than the finish and that this crime is complete and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same, the Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence reached in Madjack.

This Defendant does have the mitigation of lacking previous conviction. They also entered a plea, which is to their benefit, though the Court does consider that this mitigation must be limited by the fact that it was done only after the injured party had been required to give evidence and after doctored images were submitted to the Court. Further, they are a new nation, though, again, the Court does consider the effect of this to be limited when set against the plainly deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Defendant. The Court does not consider that the lack of remorse constitutes an aggravating factor, but clearly it cannot benefit the Defendant.

Taking the above together, the Court considers that a suspension of voting rights for 75 days and a restriction on being a candidate in elections until 1 May 2020 is the proportionate punishment for the crime.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Whole India.
 
Below are further logs of the discussion of this matter on Discord:
December 15, 2019

[7:14 PM] Justice Death: Cool
[9:43 PM] Justice Death: To be clear, the delay is me attempting to be sure on who is to be the Prosecution
[9:43 PM] Justice Death: Thus, waiting for Dino to respond
[10:08 PM] Zyvet: nods
[10:09 PM] Zyvet: Have you sent notice of the charge to Whole India?
[10:12 PM] Zyvet: Also, I should say that Deropia has DM'd me and indicated he has contacted the Defendant to offer to serve as counsel. I gather that the Defendant has not yet responded to him
[10:13 PM] Zyvet: A possibility for appointed counsel, though, if the Defendant gives no indication
[10:17 PM] Justice Death: Sounds good
[10:17 PM] Justice Death: I've posted the thread & informed WI of the charges and trial thread
[10:17 PM] Zyvet: Wonderful

December 16, 2019

[10:23 PM] Justice Death: Hmm
[10:23 PM] Zyvet: ?
[10:28 PM] Justice Death: If I'm gathering correctly, witnesses called for a deposition are the responsibility of the calling party, while mine is to coordinate the Prosecution & Defense on such?
[10:31 PM] Justice Death: Or am I mistaken on that
[10:31 PM] Zyvet: I am not sure I understand
[10:32 PM] Zyvet: Do you mean in terms of giving notice
[10:36 PM] Justice Death: Not sure I understand myself anymore as well
[10:38 PM] Justice Death: Better question, is there any sort of procedure to setting up depositions?
[10:42 PM] Justice Death: On the scheduling bits I mean, I get the running of the actual deposition & such
[10:42 PM] Zyvet: My broad understanding of the deposition process is:
-Party identifies witness
-Moderating Justice opens deposition thread
-Party ensures witness attends*
-Parties essentially coordinate questioning themselves
-If parties are bad at the above, any Justice can moderate to direct things
-Where questioning is objected to, any Justice may determine objections
-When questions are done, Moderating Justice posts official version of deposition in the trial thread

*I do not think there would be any harm in the Moderating Justice giving notice to a witness; also there may be times when compulsory process is involved here but that is a weird one
[10:43 PM] Justice Death: Gotcha
[10:45 PM] Zyvet: As to scheduling, they usually just run concurrently to the evidence period but in separate threads. There was a time when it was somewhat more convoluted, as they were historically required to be conducted over IRC, but scheduling to get everyone together to do it was nightmarish
[10:46 PM] Justice Death: Ah, the scheduling was my confusion initially
[10:46 PM] Justice Death: The 'everyone together' type
[10:48 PM] Zyvet: I would also not see any trouble in saying, if the parties are not actually doing so, that, for example, pros questions should be posted by a given time, defence objections by a given time, defence questions by a given time, and so on, were things not moving along by themselves. For scheduling within the deposition itself
[10:48 PM] Justice Death: Yea
[10:49 PM] Zyvet: May be required, having regard to the Defendant's state of knowledge of the system
[10:50 PM] Justice Death: Probably
[10:53 PM] Justice Death: Right, I'll post that thing then
[11:12 PM] Zyvet: The witness must the following oath
[11:12 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[11:12 PM]Zyvet: >.>
[11:15 PM] Zyvet: I would actually specify the questioning as going in blocks, at the moment it reads that it will alternate every question, which will break up the flow of the answers and probably lead to the deposition taking more time than it needs
[11:16 PM] Zyvet: That is, I think it would make sense for the pros to ask all of its questions, then follow-ups as the case may be; then the Defendant their questions, then follow-ups; then further questions by the pros; etc
[11:18 PM] Zyvet: @Justice Death
[11:18 PM] Zyvet: Still in turns, just longer (and one hopes more efficient) turns
[11:19 PM] Justice Death: Gotha, that makes sense
[11:19 PM] Justice Death: I'll change in a moment
[11:24 PM] Justice Death: Should be better now

[...]

December 19, 2019

[10:37 PM]Justice Death: Looks like the full trial will no longer be, given that Deropia has convinced WI to move to a guilty plea

December 20, 2019

[2:55 AM] Zyvet: "While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.” This is an interesting submission. I presume the contention is that it is known to be so punishable, rather than that it is not punishable by other constraints, but hmmm....
[...]
[4:34 AM] The Bestest of Persons: Regarding the Criminal Case: I believe any further talks should be moved to the forum thread on the case.
[...]
[10:13 PM] Zyvet: Re: the criminal case, agreed.
NB: The Bestest of Persons is Lore Lore and Justice Death is Lady Raven Wing; discussions of the request for review submitted by Rome have been omitted from the above log.
 
Below are logs of the discussion on sharing this thread with the THO panel considering the request for review related to this matter:
February 2, 2020

[4:28 PM] Zyvet: So, there is an interesting development with respect to the Whole India matter, namely this:
“This Court asks that transcripts of discussions held in regards to sentencing in the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India be made available to the THOs. This a voluntary request for the transmission of the transcripts within 48 hours of this post.”
[4:30 PM] Zyvet: I will want to think about this, in terms of what the provisions of the Court Rules would bar and what the Court’s prior rulings as to its internal discussions permit. My broad sense would be that private release to the THOs is allowable but public release is not.
[4:36 PM] Zyvet: To the extent that it is permissible, I think that it is clearly desirable to give assistance to our (temporary) judicial colleagues
[5:16 PM] Justice Death: I am not seeing specific rulings in the Decision archive, though my search is somewhat limited
[5:17 PM] Justice Death: At least none that fit this specific instance, rather than general FOI requests
[5:40 PM] Zyvet: The FoI related to the Court one is the one I am thinking of. I do not think it is necessarily binding in all of its holdings, as it plainly related only to the FoIA (if it were, the then disclosure regime would be unlawful). However, I think it is probably right to say that, in principle, the Court cannot be subject to mandatory public release, which would be the general holding I see in that decision (release under a scheme established voluntarily by the Court through its Rules is distinguishable, to my mind).
[6:40 PM] Zyvet: I have asked the panel to clarify whether they mean for public release. Presuming that they do not mean for public release or that we conclude that there is no issue in law with public release, would you both be agreed that the deliberations should be shared?

I think that, absent a bar in law, they should be shared, as I think all should be encouraged to share with the Court information that it thinks it requires for its decisions and as it would seem to me that the Court ought to lead in so doing; further, were this being considered by a non-THO panel, they would, self-evidently, not even need to request as they could simply look at the private conference room or archive.
[6:41 PM] Justice Death: I would agree that they can be shared if it's not public release

[...]

[8:09 PM] Zyvet: Also, @Court the THO panel have clarified that they mean sharing with the panel. That being so, I am satisfied that there is no bar in law to sharing and that it is the appropriate course to share, as I have indicated. What I would propose to do is simply to move the thread for deliberations from the private conference room to the special chambers, unless there is objection to sharing or to that method of sharing.
[8:09 PM] Justice Death: Fine by me

February 3, 2020

[3:18 AM] The Bestest of Persons: I have no problem with it being released to just them.

[...]

[11:33 AM] Zyvet: Wonderful
NB: The Bestest of Persons is Lore Lore and Justice Death is Lady Raven Wing; discussions of the ongoing trials, TNP v Atermizistan and TNP v Ikea Rike, have been omitted from the above log.
 
Below is what I would be minded to do in connection with this matter. Changes are noted in the second spoiler. While I would like to hear submissions on the issue of credit, I would not insist on it if neither of you think that it would be worthwhile, given that I think that my view on the issue is fairly settled.

Essentially, I think that a small reduction in sentence should be given. While I am of the view that the original sentence remains appropriate to the justice of the matter, as my far more significant concern with respect to the mitigation of the mitigation of the guilty plea was the fact that Red Back had to give evidence, I think that we must recognise that to afford the point no weight is unrealistic.

I would give credit, as indicated, of 40 days. I don't think any credit needs to be noted for the voting restriction, as the way the sentence is written means that the time already served is included. While I think it is arguable that a later date could be set to account for the fact that the Defendant could, notionally, have stood in elections in the last few days, the fact of the matter is no elections have happened in that period and it could well be thought to be disproportionate (and contrary to the order of the review Court) to extend the election bar to account for those days.

I have included my thinking on the issue of credit in the order and a slightly lengthier explanation of why Red Back being required to give evidence is such a significant factor. Naturally, whether you want those points in (or, indeed, if you agree with them at all) are matters for you.
court_seal.png

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Lady Raven Wing and Lord Lore
​
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Dinoium:
Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors

  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Deropia:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation



  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Madjack:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.

Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.

Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.

The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 12, and Chapter 2, clause 1, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Whole India, be punished for Fraud by:

  1. A suspension of voting rights for a period of 70 days, with credit to be given for 40 days already served, leaving 30 days left to be served; and,
  2. A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before 1 May 2020.
The Defendant has committed Fraud, a serious crime. They did this by falsely claiming that an innocent nation had attempted to intimidate them in order to stop them running in the upcoming general election. They did so in order to damage the reputation of that innocent nation and to further their own prospects at that election.

The Court has considered the recommendation made by the parties in this matter, but is driven to the conclusion that the recommendation does not produce a proportionate punishment. The Court notes the comparison made to the case The North Pacific v Madjack. While the Court considers the case is useful, the Court also bears in mind that there were two crimes being sentenced on that occasion, that the crime in that case was of greater seriousness and that there would have, had it been successful, be greater risk to the region from the crime. However, the Court also notes that final sentence reached in that case was with the Defendant having the benefit of substantial evidence of positive good character in contributing to the region, an early plea, and remorse: the starting point would clearly have been higher.

When accounting for the fact that the starting point in Madjack must have been significantly higher than the finish and that this crime is complete and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same, the Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence reached in Madjack.

This Defendant does have the mitigation of lacking previous conviction. They also entered a plea, which is to their benefit, though the Court does consider that this mitigation must be limited by the fact that it was done only after the injured party had been required to give evidence, which could have resulted in them being liable for prosecution had the Defendant continued, and succeeded in, their denial of guilt. Further, they are a new nation, though, again, the Court does consider the effect of this to be limited when set against the plainly deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Defendant. The Court does not consider that the lack of remorse constitutes an aggravating factor, but clearly it cannot benefit the Defendant.

Taking the above together, the Court considers that a suspension of voting rights for 70 days and a restriction on being a candidate in elections until 1 May 2020 is the proportionate punishment for the crime.The Court notes that, though the original sentence handed down in this matter has been vacated, the Defendant and the region at large has proceeded on the basis that that sentence was effective. The Court considers that the Defendant should be given credit for the time that they have served on that basis and does not consider it necessary, in so doing, to decide whether the sentence was void from the outset or not. This calls for credit of 40 days to be given in connection with the suspension of voting rights; no credit is required to be noted for the restriction on candidacy in elections, due to the form of the order. While the Defendant has accrued a notional benefit in being able to stand for elections in the period between the original sentence being vacated and this sentence being handed down, no election has in fact occurred in that period and the Court does not consider any adjustment of the date is required given that the notional benefit has not translated into any real benefit.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Whole India.

court_seal.png

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Lady Raven Wing and Lord Lore​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Dinoium:
Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors

  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Deropia:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation



  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Madjack:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.

Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.

Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.

The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 12, and Chapter 2, clause 1, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Whole India, be punished for Fraud by:

  1. A suspension of voting rights for a period of 705 days, with credit to be given for 40 days already served, leaving 30 days left to be served; and,
  2. A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before 1 May 2020.
The Defendant has committed Fraud, a serious crime. They did this by falsely claiming that an innocent nation had attempted to intimidate them in order to stop them running in the upcoming general election. They did so in order to damage the reputation of that innocent nation and to further their own prospects at that election.

In committing the crime, the Defendant, as well as making the false claim, also produced images purporting to show the attempted intimidation. Those images were produced by the Defendant to the Court, though the Defendant's plea was entered before they were authenticated. The conclusion the Court must draw from the Defendant's plea is that those images were doctored.

The Court has considered the recommendation made by the parties in this matter, but is driven to the conclusion that the recommendation does not produce a proportionate punishment. The Court notes the comparison made to the case The North Pacific v Madjack. While the Court considers the case is useful, the Court also bears in mind that there were two crimes being sentenced on that occasion, that the crime in that case was of greater seriousness and that there would have, had it been successful, be greater risk to the region from the crime. However, the Court also notes that final sentence reached in that case was with the Defendant having the benefit of substantial evidence of positive good character in contributing to the region, an early plea, and remorse: the starting point would clearly have been higher.

When accounting for the fact that the starting point in Madjack must have been significantly higher than the finish and that this crime is complete and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same, the Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence reached in Madjack.

This Defendant does have the mitigation of lacking previous conviction. They also entered a plea, which is to their benefit, though the Court does consider that this mitigation must be limited by the fact that it was done only after the injured party had been required to give evidence, which could have resulted in them being liable for prosecution had the Defendant continued, and succeeded in, their denial of guilt and after doctored images were submitted to the Court. Further, they are a new nation, though, again, the Court does consider the effect of this to be limited when set against the plainly deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Defendant. The Court does not consider that the lack of remorse constitutes an aggravating factor, but clearly it cannot benefit the Defendant.

Taking the above together, the Court considers that a suspension of voting rights for 705 days and a restriction on being a candidate in elections until 1 May 2020 is the proportionate punishment for the crime. The Court notes that, though the original sentence handed down in this matter has been vacated, the Defendant and the region at large has proceeded on the basis that that sentence was effective. The Court considers that the Defendant should be given credit for the time that they have served on that basis and does not consider it necessary, in so doing, to decide whether the sentence was void from the outset or not. This calls for credit of 40 days to be given in connection with the suspension of voting rights; no credit is required to be noted for the restriction on candidacy in elections, due to the form of the order. While the Defendant has accrued a notional benefit in being able to stand for elections in the period between the original sentence being vacated and this sentence being handed down, no election has in fact occurred in that period and the Court does not consider any adjustment of the date is required given that the notional benefit has not translated into any real benefit.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v Whole India.
EDIT: "extent" to "extend"
EDIT2: removed extraneous space and corrected “th3” to “the”
 
Last edited:
I have posted the sentencing then, and informed the Speaker. The Chief Election Commissioner will be informed as soon as the forum allows.
 
Below are discord logs of the discussion of this matter.

February 5, 2020

[2:50 PM] Zyvet: The THO panel has handed down its decision in the Whole India review. The matter is remanded back to us as the trial Court with no direction to recuse but with an order that the sentence not be more harsh. It seems to me that the matter should be open to submissions from the parties. I would be particularly interested in submissions on what account, if any, must or should be taken if the sentence the Defendant has already served (or been under the impression they were serving, if we think it was vacated retroactively). I am not minded to recuse myself at the moment, given I specifically invited the THOs to so direct and they did not.
[4:30 PM] Zyvet: (were a motion to recuse to be made, I may well think differently)
[7:28 PM] Justice Death: I don't particularly see a need to recuse
[7:29 PM] Justice Death: I was personally going to propose chopping off the offending sentence and some smallish period of time
[7:54 PM] Zyvet: I can see that the defence may wish for me to be off the panel, in view of my submissions, and if they do take issue then I may recuse to assuage any concern for fairness they may have (if they take no issue I don't see a need).

As to what to do, absent compelling contrary submissions, I would be minded to omit reference to the images (and include a more particular explanation of why it is that Red Back having to testify requires reduction of credit) and hand down a sentence of slightly lesser length in voting suspension and the same election restriction. I think that the original sentence is in actuality of an appropriate length with or without the reference, but I think to simply hand down the same sentence would appear somewhat like openly defying the decision of the review
[9:42 PM] Justice Death: I would agree
[9:43 PM] Justice Death: I don't recall thinking the like one sentence on the images being forged was a terribly big deal in terms of sentencing, but a small reduction is appropriate regardless

February 6, 2020

[3:45 PM] Zyvet: I would like to hear submissions on credit for the time the Defendant has already been restricted though
[3:48 PM] Zyvet: I think credit should be given and, I would imagine, that is what will be submitted by the defence, at least, but I think it could be of help more generally to have the point considered
[5:38 PM] The Bestest of Persons: As a justice that was angling for a much higher sentence I do not see any need to reduce the sentence any more. Its my belief that the court was already lenient enough and the sentence as is already more then half over in regards to voting rights. And even a day reduction in barring for election is effectively a 4 month reduction in sentence
[5:44 PM] Zyvet: What I have in mind is to the effect of:

A suspension of voting rights for a period of 70 days, with credit to be given for 40 (I think) days already served, leaving 30 days left to be served; and,
A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before 1 May 2020.

Presuming sentence was passed today, of course. So it would be a small reduction, indeed.
[5:44 PM] Zyvet: On a somewhat related note, having thought yet further about the Whole India review, I wonder if it strictly would require evidence in indictments to be authenticated (or authentication waived) even for guilty pleas before sentence can be passed on the basis of evidence in the indictments?
[5:52 PM] The Bestest of Persons: I am not happy about it but I could live with that if its done today.
[8:52 PM]Zyvet: Actually, I am being silly and no further credit would accrue whether the new sentence is passed today or any other day, as he isn't serving the sentence now
[9:16 PM] Zyvet: What are views on the question of whether the Whole India review effectively requires that the evidence in the indictments be authenticated (if we are to actually sentence on the basis of what the indictment includes)
[10:05 PM] Justice Death: I wouldn't think so, since a guilt plea implicitly would accept whatever evidence is in the indictment
[10:05 PM] Justice Death: The WI bit wasn't, so a guilty plea didn't cover it
[10:07 PM] Justice Death: Otherwise a guilty plea would get you out of everything because there's no actual basis to what you're pleading guilty too
[10:30 PM] Zyvet: I mean, if their plea is that they falsely stated they were threatened, I don't really see that how it is anything other than an implicit acceptance of the fact that they received no threat in any medium, but plainly that is not how the THOs saw the matter :P

But, in any event, the issue about there being no basis for what one is pleading to is my point about the problem the decision creates, unless one simply considers that it is outside of the scope of the authentication provisions
[10:31 PM]Zyvet: And/or that it is acceptance of what is stated in the indictment but not the evidence in the indictment or anything else
[10:31 PM] Zyvet: (though that creates its own difficulty; how could the Court come to any conclusion on remorse, for example)
[10:33 PM] Justice Death: Lol
[10:34 PM] Justice Death: Anyways, my reading of it is that evidence in the indictment is part of those charges, and thus pleading guilty includes that evidence
[10:35 PM] Justice Death: But that other evidence must be authentated if it is to be considered in a guilty plea
[10:40 PM] Zyvet: No more reductions of sentence for remorse, I guess
[10:40 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[10:40 PM] Justice Death: Lol
[10:41 PM] Justice Death: 'We know require character witnesses to submit during evidence submission' :stuck_out_tongue:
[10:41 PM] Justice Death: *now
[10:43 PM] Zyvet: :stuck_out_tongue:
[10:43 PM] Zyvet: But also maybe for real though
[10:43 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[10:43 PM] Justice Death: More amendments basically I think
[10:44 PM] Zyvet: It'll be more amendments than it is old rules at this rate
[10:45 PM] Justice Death: Busiest court term of all time
[10:45 PM] Zyvet: Probably true, to be honest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top