[Private] TNP v Ikea Rike

[Zyvetskistaahn]

A trial thread has been created for TNP v Ikea Rike: here

The discussion of this matter prior to the creation of the trial thread can be seen: here

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The Defendant has entered a plea of guilty and chosen to self-represent. They have also made a sentencing recommendation of a ban of 280 days.

While I am waiting to see whether the Prosecution will address these questions before raising them myself, I am minded to ask the parties whether they have submissions on: what account should the Court take, if any, of the time the Defendant has already spent banned before sentence, pursuant to my approval; what should the Court do in relation to the mandatory elements of punishment that do not apply to the Defendant, namely ejection, as they have already been ejected, and removal from office, as they do not hold office. Depending on the decision of the THO panel in the Whole India review, I may also ask what the implications of that decision are for sentencing.

Are there other questions that may need to be put to the parties?

Below are logs of discord discussion of this matter (continuing from the conclusion of the logs in the request for indictment thread):

Spoiler: times GMT (UTC)

January 24, 2020

[8:51 PM] Zyvet: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191617/#post-10299995

Version with changes, yea or nay? (I have also expanded on the consequence of failing to respond slightly)
[9:50 PM] Justice Death: Looks fine to me

January 25, 2020

[1:55 PM] Zyvet: Wonderful, I will send notice to Ikea Rike now(ish)
[2:48 PM] Zyvet: Re: the posting of the trial threads. While we're both our own decision makers on the matter as moderating Justices, I think it may make sense for there to be co-ordination in terms of approach to ensuring compliance with the publication order.

I would think that the two sensible ways to go about it is to, when posting the trial threads, to set the plea period as either not starting until the evidence is published then running for 48 hours or starting but not finishing until 48 hours after publication.

I think that the former perhaps makes more sense as I don't think the Defendant should be asked to enter a plea before the publication even if they don't strictly have to, but it does put the trial in a kind of limbo period that isn't provided for by the rules, whereas the latter means it is in the plea period albeit that it could last forever.
[7:35 PM] Justice Death: I would also prefer the former
[10:49 PM] Zyvet: So, using the usual trial thread OP but with:

"The Defendant will have 48 hours from the opening of the thread to enter a plea. If at that time no plea has been entered, a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for the Defendant."

Replaced with:

"The period for plea submission will start when the evidence supporting the indictment is published in accordance with the Court's direction. The Defendant will have 48 hours from the publication of that evidence to enter a plea. If at that time no plea has been entered, a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for the Defendant."

Plus a notice that the trial thread has been posted, essentially in the same terms as one posted but, obviously, with the trial thread linked.

Does that seem appropriate?
[11:11 PM] Justice Death: Yes

January 26, 2020

[12:10 AM] Zyvet: Good, good. I think I will post the Ikea Rike thread tomorrow, probably around midday (12 hours or thereabouts from now). When you post the Artem thread is a matter for you.

I think that when we post the trial threads separate private threads should also be posted.
[12:12 AM] Justice Death: Gotcha

[...]

January 27, 2020

[2:14 AM] Justice Death: Hmm, seems the block of 1-40 screenshots is public now, while the UM ones are not
[3:02 AM] Justice Death: Evidence public, Artemiz (re-)informed, 48 hour countdown has been started
[3:46 AM] The Bestest of Persons: Health has improved quite a bit recently. I should be more available going forward.
[4:42 AM] Justice Death: Excellent indeed
[9:45 AM] Zyvet: Good on all fronts. I have informed Ikea Rike and started the countdown for them
[4:11 PM] Zyvet: @Justice Death, so, strictly we are in a forum access emergency which would require a resident not to be penalised from failing to take steps that require the forum. I think it is arguable that the default plea could be within that and I don't think it is fair to say that the Defendants aren't residents when we're (or, I'm) the ones that authorised their ejection. Views on whether an extension to the plea periods to account for the lost time is needed?
[4:34 PM] Justice Death: If so, then I would think that the countdown be 'paused' for however long the access issue is
[5:00 PM] Zyvet: And we are back. I think that I am minded to note that the 48 hours will conclude an hour later, to account for the downtime, given that it won't lead to any great delay in any event
[5:02 PM] Justice Death: Indeed

[...]

January 28, 2020

[12:37 AM] Zyvet: Ikea appears to be looking at the trial thread <.<

[...]

January 29, 2020

[1:57 AM] Justice Death: Right, Artemiz has plead guilty to everything, but has asked for Court-Appointed Counsel, do we have any regular procedure/precedent on that you know of @Zyvet?
[2:08 AM] Zyvet: It doesn't come up with great frequency. As I recall, the previous occasion was the TSRoNK trial and Elu, who was moderating, posted a thread seeking volunteers to be counsel. It would seem to me that that it as good a method as any.

Deropia has indicated an interest to me to serve as defence counsel if appointment is required, so we would have at least one volunteer, I would think. My preference would be for separate counsel, as I can see that there may be some possibility of conflict as between the Defendants (though it may not materialise), so I would like to see if we can find more than one competent volunteer.

I think a post setting out that the Court is seeking volunteers to serve as appointed counsel in the Artemiz trial and, potentially, the Ikea Rike trial and asking them to DM you. I think it makes sense to just use one thread rather than have separate ones for this purpose.

The decision is expressed in the rules as being for the Court, so it would seem that we need to agree on the counsel rather than it being for us each as Moderating Justices, so we would all need to consider the volunteers in any event.
[2:10 AM] Justice Death: Gotcha
[2:10 AM] Justice Death: Courtroom or the wider court subforum you think?
[2:10 AM] Zyvet: I think the wider sub-forum
[2:12 AM] Justice Death: Cool, Ill do that real quick

(NB: The Bestest of Persons is Lord Lore and Justice Death is Lady Raven Wing; omissions are made from the above log in relation to discussions that relate exclusively to the matter of TNP v Artemizistan and which are not necessary context for discussions of this matter)

 

[Lord Dominator]

Hmm. These questions look good to me, can't think of anything reasonable to otherwise ask.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The sentencing stage has passed. Regrettably, the prosecution have not been able to address the questions raised, they have also not made objection to considering the Defendant's part in the series of ejections in CCD of late.

Should they move to resume to allow them to address the questions, I would be minded to allow it. I do not think I would allow any issue to be taken with accepting the role in the ejections, the prosecution have had their time to do so and it would be prejudicial to the Defendant to allow the matter to be reopened despite the failure of the prosecution to deal with it when they had the time. I may resume if the decision of the panel in the Whole India review necessitates it, but hopefully that will not prove necessary.

We should, therefore, move to deliberations on sentence. I think that this might be a somewhat complicated one. The law on punishments for these matters is thus:

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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
[...]
10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

The prosecution have referred us to the case of TNP v Madjack, in which the Defendant was punished for Conspiracy to commit Fraud and Gross Misconduct. I think that other cases may also be relevant, including: TNP v Ravania, in which the Defendant was punished for espionage after trial; and TNP v The Swedish Republic of New Kenya, in which the Defendant was punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct after a plea. While TNP v Bobberino involved punishment for Gross Misconduct, I don't think it relevant to this matter, given the drastically differing facts, whereas for the three above cases the facts all involved foreign powers and action against the regional government. Clearly, insofar as the cases are of conspiracy, we must bear in mind that the law requires, in principle, that completed offences be punished more harshly. I can't recall of any cases of conviction for treason (or espionage other than Ravania) but will look through the records to see if there are any.

It seems to me that we are required to pass a sentence with a number of elements: ejection; banning for some period; removal of basic rights for some period; suspension of voting rights for some period; and removal from office. We may, additionally, impose a suspension on speech.

On the removal of basic rights, I think there is a question we need to think about as to whether "any" means that we need to remove all of the Defendant's basic rights or whether it means we need to remove some of them but can pick and choose whichever of them we want (including all of them). My initial view is the latter, but I would like to think further.

On the mandatory elements we can't, strictly, impose (ejection and removal from office), I think that it is appropriate either to order them or to state that we would order them but for the fact that the Defendant is not in the region and doesn't hold office. As to which of those courses I would prefer, I will need to consider further.

In terms of the length of sentence, I have to say that I think that the prosecution has made an overzealous recommendation. If the Defendant's actions warrant an indefinite ban, one must ask what a substantially more successful plot would merit. I think the sentence should be determinate and, while I do wish to think further, my initial impression is that the Defendant's recommendation on the length of a ban may be appropriate. I would, however, be minded to say that, whatever the length of the ban is, a removal of basic rights and any further suspension should be for a longer period than the ban; that is, I think that citizenship removal should follow and that the Defendant should be barred from citizenship for a period longer than the ban.

 

[Just a Lore]

I have to agree about the Prosecution is reaching on their recommendation. I'm also a little hesitant to use the trials of Madjack, Ravania, or New Kenya as a benchmark for this case. Madjack's sentencing was largely based on the Fraud charge, Ravania's case had actual harm and is nearly a decade old, and New Kenya was charged with far more, fought the case, and was still given a light sentence with a plea deal.

I find it highly irregular how harsh the Deputy AG was after the defendant so readily admitted guilt and moved towards mitigating factors and trying to prove remorse. Its my belief the court should maintain a tradition of rewarding people for admitting their guilt by showing some level of leniency.

My starting place for suggestions would be:

90 Days Ban from 12/19/19 - 3/18/20
90 Days Suspension of Citizenship 12/19/19 - 3/18/20
183 Days Suspension of Voting Rights 12/19/19 - 6/19/20
366 Days Ban from running for Elected Office 12/19/19 - 12/19/20

Broken down by Charge:

Treason - 90 Day Ban, 90 Days Suspension of Citizenship, 366 Days Banning from Elected Office

Espionage - 92 Day Suspension of Voting Rights

Gross Misconduct - 91 Day Suspension of Voting Rights

 

[Lord Dominator]

Looks reasonable to me

I would however suggest that the Voting Rights suspension & Running for Office ban start when the other 2 end, as otherwise those will be removed during a period when the Defendant can't exercise them anyways. That is to say, an effectively meaningless punishment during the 90 day period of the ban/citizenship suspension.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I think that, in relation to citizenship, it should really be removed with a bar on reattaining it for a period of time to avoid issues of uncertainty with respect to the Speaker. If we "suspend" citizenship for three months but then, at the end, the Defendant's nation is not in the region, the Court's prior holdings on the effect of ejection on removal of citizenship may mean that they simply resume being a citizen even if not in the region and, further, it is not clear how the provisions for loss of citizenship due to failure to post would operate in relation to a "suspension".

In relation to voting rights and elected office, perhaps we could follow the lead of the Court in TSRoNK and impose a conditional sentence. That is, it starts to run from when the Defendant regains citizenship (presuming they do), but with a longstop date for if do not regain citizenship for a considerable period of time.

I think that the suggested lengths of time for the voting rights and elected office suspensions seem right to me (presuming they are consecutive to the ban/citizenship), though I would suggest that the office bar should not be limited simply to elected office but also to holding appointed office. EDIT: though, actually, I think that there is a case to be made for saying that the Gross Misconduct punishment should be concurrent to the other punishments, as it is committed by, essentially, the same conduct.

I think the length of ban proposed is too short. This was a lengthy and deliberate operation by the Defendant on behalf a repulsive hostile region and, to my mind, it calls for a relatively lengthy ban. I think that the length of ban proposed by the Defendant would be the appropriate starting point. I agree that we should be aware of the fact that the harm that has resulted has been minimal and accept that it is clear the Defendant is remorseful that credit should be given for an early and complete plea, but I don't think 90 days would be sufficient to recognise the purpose of the Defendant as being to overthrow the region, that it was for such a long period and was deliberate, and that it was for an abhorrent regime. I would be minded to say the period of ban, accounting for the mitigation, should be in the area of 120-150 days. I would, however, give credit for time already spent banned (which I think is 15 days as of today), so if sentence were passed today the length left to serve would be less.

 

[Lord Dominator]

Apologies for the later response.

The conditional sentence of imposing the loss of rights after regaining citizenship rather than a concurrent sentence is preferable in my view. Separate punishments are meaningless if a different one makes another pointless as a punishment.

I would agree that the defendants recommendations are useful here, though I don't think we need to expand much beyond them, if at all.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

It seems to me that the Whole India decision does require this matter to be reopened, given that the Court effectively concluded that documentary evidence that is not authenticated does not exist and cannot be considered. I would be minded to resume, state that I waive authentication of the images, on the basis that: they relate to events that I consider the Court can take notice of; it is expedient for the purpose of sentencing; and that the prosecution took no issue with accepting the proposition without evidence despite an extension of time for them to do so.

Views?

 

[Lord Dominator]

That sounds reasonable to me

 

[Just a Lore]

I am in agreement.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Below is a rough draft of a sentencing order along the lines discussed above. I have not worked out the period spent already banned, as I assume that this order will not be handed down today. I have yielded to 90 days as being the appropriate period for a ban. I have kept the other lengths of punishment essentially as above, except that I have generally went with multiples of 30 rather than 31 and that I have expressed the ban on seeking office as being for "a year" rather than in a period of days.

Excluding the ban and removal of citizenship, all the punishments are conditional on gaining citizenship within specified periods. I have chosen before 31 May 2022 for the election ban. May because that accounts for the time at which the ban and bar on citizenship will end. Two years, because that ensures, essentially, that there is a one year period during which the punishment will start and run for its full course and thereafter it will diminish down to zero.

For the voting rights bans, I have made the espionage ban conditional on citizenship and the gross misconduct ban conditional on completing the espionage ban (I think that the wording of it may need some work though, because how it is worded at the moment might actually create a weird scenario where it would not commence in the final three months if the espionage ban has not also commenced). The espionage punishment will start to diminish at around this point next year, reaching zero on 31 May 2021. The gross misconduct punishment starts to diminish on 31 May 2021 and reaches zero on 29 August 2021 (I think).

Spoiler: Sentencing Order, rough

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 2, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 2, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Treason by:

• Ejection and ban from the region for a period of 90, but with credit to be given for [x] days already banned, leaving [y] days to be served;
• Removal of citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of [y] days; and,
• Removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2022 there will be no suspension of this right.

.

AND, under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 6, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 3, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Espionage by:

• Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there will be no suspension of this right.

AND, under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 25, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 10, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Gross Misconduct by:

• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold; and,
• [Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage or, if they do not complete their sentence for Espionage before 1 June 2021, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 29 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right

The Defendant has committed a number of crimes: Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct. They did so as part of their role in an operation organised by the head of a foreign government which is widely and rightly reviled. They acted as an agent of that foreign government and sought to infiltrate The North Pacific with a view to assisting in the overthrow of the regional government, in so doing they provided reports on the activities of the region, all contrary to their sworn oath. Their actions required them to mislead their fellow citizens and to betray the goodwill extended to them.

It is fortunate, however, that their operation appears to have had minimal impact, their governmental involvement being limited to the Regional Assembly and positions in the executive staff as opposed to the attainment of government office, and to have lead to the disclosure of little, if any, significant information from the region. It is apparent from the evidence supporting the indictment that the Defendant quickly became more preoccupied with the region's roleplay than with their original mission. Had there been a greater impact, this would be a far more serious matter.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties and has considered both the case of The North Pacific v Madjack, to which it was referred, and The North Pacific v Ravania, to which it was not. The Court does not consider that Madjack is of assistance to the Court in this matter: the Defendant in that case was not sentenced for any of the crimes being considered here and the different underlying facts render the sentence for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct of little use. Ravania is more helpful, as it is a sentence for Espionage, but it is limited, due to the different purposes of the Espionage and to the fact that actual harm did result from the actions of the Defendant in Ravania.

The Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the length its sentence is around that proposed by the Defendant, though the Court does not consider that it would be right for the whole of the period to be punished by a ban. The Court is wholly unpersuaded that the justice of the case requires an indefinite ban as suggested by the prosecution, such a ban would be manifestly excessive when set against the actual impact of the Defendant's crime.

However, the Court must go on to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. A significant aggravating factor is the sheer length of time for which the Defendant was committing the crimes, this is of particular concern when considering the risk the Defendant could pose if allowed opportunity to attain office. In mitigation are a number of factors. As the Court has noted, the harm done by the crime appears minimal. The Defendant has no prior convictions and was new to the region, but that must be set against the fact that the Defendant's presence in the region arose only to commit these crimes. Of substantially greater credit to the Defendant is their entry of a prompt and complete guilty plea to each crime and recognition that their actions require punishment. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse and has renounced their previous association with the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators, these facts also do much to aid the Defendant.

Taking those factors together, the Court considers that the appropriate measure to take is not to substantially reduce the length of the punishment, but is to reduce its severity, such that the bulk of the period of punishment will not be served by a ban. However, the law requires the Court to pass a punishment including ejection and banning and the Court considers that it will, in all but the most unusual of circumstances, require a ban of a non-trivial length to meet the gravity inherent to the crime of Treason. In this case, the Court considers that the period of the ban should be 90 days. The Court considers it just and appropriate to also order the removal of the Defendant's citizenship and to remove their ability to seek and hold citizenship for the period of the ban.

As is stated above, the Court also considers that there must be recognition of the fact that the Defendant has shown a willingness to act to overthrow the region and to do so for a considerable period of time, such that steps must be taken to prevent undue risk to regional government. The Court considers, therefore, that should further be imposed removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant gains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 May 2022 there shall be no removal of the right.

The law also requires the Court to impose separate punishments in respect of Espionage and Gross Misconduct. Espionage must be punished by either suspensions of voting rights or speech. Gross Misconduct must be punished by suspension of voting rights. Without rehearsing all of the factors discussed above, the Court considers that the appropriate punishment in respect of each of the crimes of Espionage and Gross Misconduct is a voting suspension of 90 days. The punishment for Espionage shall commence when the Defendant gains citizenship and shall last for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. The punishment for Gross Misconduct shall commence when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and shall last for a period of 90 days or until 29 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. Gross Misconduct must also be punishment by removal from office; while it appears to the Court that the Defendant holds no office, the Court does nonetheless, in order to ensure completeness, order the Defendant's removal from any office they may hold.

In relation to the punishment of Treason by banning, the Court considers that it must recognise that the Defendant has already spent a considerable period of time banned, by the approval of the Chief Justice, pending the conclusion of this trial. While that ban was not punitive in its purpose, its link to these proceedings is clear and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of fairness and proportionality in punishment, credit should generally be given for periods served banned pending trial. Consequently, credit is given for [x] days the Defendant has spent already banned, leaving [y] days to be served.

 

[Just a Lore]

My only comment on this so far is since we are sticking with 90 day and 365 as the blocs of time for everything else. For the barring from citizenship should be ~180 days from sentencing. A unified summary of sentence at the end might be helpful possibly as a spoiler under the seperated part at the top. Made some edits with my suggestions.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 2, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 2, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Treason by:

• Ejection and ban from the region for a period of 90, but with credit to be given for [x] days already banned, leaving [y] days to be served with credit received for days already banned, ending 18 March 2020;
• Removal of citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of [y] 180 days from the day of sentencing, until [date]; and,
• Removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2022 there will be no suspension of this right.

.

AND, under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 6, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 3, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Espionage by:

• Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there will be no suspension of this right.

AND, under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 25, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 10, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Gross Misconduct by:

• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold; and,
• [Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage or, if they do not complete their sentence for Espionage before 1 June 2021, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 29 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right

Spoiler: Whole Sentencing

• Ejection and Ban from the region for a period of 90 days, credit received for days banned, ending 18 March 2020
• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold
• Removal of citizenship
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of [y] days
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office, until 31 May 2022 or a 90 day period after attaining citizenship whichever shall be sooner
• Suspension of the right to vote, until 29 August 2021, or a 180 day period after attaining citizenship whichever shall be sooner

The Defendant has committed a number of crimes: Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct. They did so as part of their role in an operation organised by the head of a foreign government which is widely and rightly reviled. They acted as an agent of that foreign government and sought to infiltrate The North Pacific with a view to assisting in the overthrow of the regional government, in so doing they provided reports on the activities of the region, all contrary to their sworn oath. Their actions required them to mislead their fellow citizens and to betray the goodwill extended to them.

 

[Lord Dominator]

I'd note that Lore's first edit is missing a 'days,' leaving the 90 without a unit.

The reasoning thus written by Zyvet for the sentencing looks good to me on review.

Otherwise the sentence as written looks good (with Lore's edits).

 

[Just a Lore]

I'd note that Lore's first edit is missing a 'days,' leaving the 90 without a unit.

The reasoning thus written by Zyvet for the sentencing looks good to me on review.

Otherwise the sentence as written looks good (with Lore's edits).

To be fair there was no days in the original as well <.<

 

[Lord Dominator]

Fair :p

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Below is a slightly revised version of the order with the formal elements added.

I think that the ban, with credit, should end on 18 April 2020, rather than 18 March 2020, am I incorrect?

I have tried to reword the Gross Misconduct sentence, I think that I prefer the rewording, but I have to think that it can be done more clearly still.

I have included the 180 day citizenship bar, though I feel like I do not follow the reasoning behind changing from 90 days. My original sense was that the citizenship bar was to be and should be concurrent with the ban from the region, but I may have misunderstood. I have adjusted the dates for the longstops on the other sentences to account for the fact that they could not start until later if there is a longer citizenship bar. The bolded purple words would need alteration if the bar on citizenship extends beyond the ban (and I think may need amending even if the bar is left at 90 days, to something along the lines of "of a similar period", to reflect the fact that credit being given for time banned won't extend to the citizenship bar, as they have not lost citizenship).

I have amended the reference to the mandatory punishment for espionage to be clear that, strictly, both restrictions on speech and voting can be imposed.

I have added a summary as suggested at the end.

Spoiler

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike

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

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

Spoiler: Section 1.1: Treason

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

Spoiler: Section 1.2: Espionage

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

Spoiler: Section 1.9: Gross Misconduct

25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

Spoiler: Chapter 2: Penal Code

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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
[...]
10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

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

Spoiler: Recommendation

Your Honours,

The state of The North Pacific thanks the court for the given time. As the prosecution in this criminal dispute, we hereby submit our recommendation for the sentencing of the person known under their North Pacifican alias ‘IkeaRike’. ‘IkeaRike’ is being charged with the following crimes:

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

In accordance with Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, the defendant can be punished with the following:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

Mitigating Factors

IkeaRike is a more newer member of our community, but had the rights and resources in order to read our laws knowing if caught, they can be prosecuted and banned. IkeaRike was also familiar with law making, specifically the legal code, which contains listed crimes that he could be prosecuted for, thus only making it more obvious that he had the resources and information about the crimes he was committing by spying on The North Pacific.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. Madjack, MadJack was accused of conspiring to commit Treason by providing the New Pacific Order with material aid (such as WA votes and potential military gameplay support) in exchange for undermining our government and helping him win the Delegacy. And, while the accusation was dropped and that IkeaRike hadn’t ran in any recent delegate elections, he was promised the resources to do so by the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators in exchange for undermining The North Pacific’s government for them.

General Comments

While the office of the Attorney General recognizes that the defendant may feel remorse for what they did, they only entered the region in the first place with the intent of undermining the region’s government, and that there is no definitive proof that they no longer had that intend of undermining our government. This, alongside the defendant recognizing that they committed these crimes, only supports the argument for banning IkeaRike from the region. And, while the defendant had asked for a one year sentence, this doesn’t stop them from returning one year later and continuing their efforts to undermine our regional government in the future.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General’s Office argues for the indefinite ban of IkeRike from The North Pacific and an indefinite suspension of their citizenship.

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. IkeaRike’
[/QUOTE]

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

Spoiler: Recommendation

I understand that such a decision is entirely at the court’s discretion, though I was unable to find strong precedent for this case in the TNP legal records. As such, I would recommend a complete ban for at minimum the amount of time I was a citizen. If my records are correct, this would have been April 24th, 2019, meaning if my math is also correct, 280 days. Given the severity of the acts, I would be more than understanding of a minimum of a year or more. Though again, I will defer to the court’s and prosecution’s discretion.

I would like to alter my previous sentencing recommendation on account for recent activity in the CCD. The important event is the assisting of Riakou of the CCD in a plot to devastate the CCD as a farewell “gift”. I would be happy to submit to the Court any documentation needed to support this claim, and would like to try and limit such a ban to at most the 280 days suggested prior.

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

Spoiler: 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

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

Spoiler: The North Pacific v Ravania

Sentence:

The Court orders that Ravania's voting rights be stripped for a period of 6 months. This means that, should Ravania join the Regional Assembly during the next six months, they will have no right to vote.

The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 2, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 2, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Treason by:

1. Ejection and ban from the region for a period of 90 days, with credit received for days already banned, ending 18 April 2020;
2. Removal of citizenship;
3. Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 180 days from the date of sentencing, ending [date]; and,
4. Removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 August 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 August 2022 there will be no suspension of this right.

.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 6, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 3, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Espionage by:

1. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 25, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 10, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Gross Misconduct by:

1. Removal from any office the Defendant may hold; and,
2. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and lasting for a period of 90 days or, if there is no suspension of their right to vote under that sentence, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting until 29 November 2021, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 29 November 2021 there will be no suspension of this right

The Defendant has committed a number of crimes: Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct. They did so as part of their role in an operation organised by the head of a foreign government which is widely and rightly reviled. They acted as an agent of that foreign government and sought to infiltrate The North Pacific with a view to assisting in the overthrow of the regional government, in so doing they provided reports on the activities of the region, all contrary to their sworn oath. Their actions required them to mislead their fellow citizens and to betray the goodwill extended to them.

It is fortunate, however, that their operation appears to have had minimal impact, their governmental involvement being limited to the Regional Assembly and positions in the executive staff as opposed to the attainment of government office, and to have lead to the disclosure of little, if any, significant information from the region. It is apparent from the evidence supporting the indictment that the Defendant quickly became more preoccupied with the region's roleplay than with their original mission. Had there been a greater impact, this would be a far more serious matter.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties and has considered both the case of The North Pacific v Madjack, to which it was referred, and The North Pacific v Ravania, to which it was not. The Court does not consider that Madjack is of assistance to the Court in this matter: the Defendant in that case was not sentenced for any of the crimes being considered here and the different underlying facts render the sentence for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct of little use. Ravania is more helpful, as it is a sentence for Espionage, but it is limited, due to the different purposes of the Espionage and to the fact that actual harm did result from the actions of the Defendant in Ravania.

The Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the length its sentence is around that proposed by the Defendant, though the Court does not consider that it would be right for the whole of the period to be punished by a ban. The Court is wholly unpersuaded that the justice of the case requires an indefinite ban as suggested by the prosecution, such a ban would be manifestly excessive when set against the actual impact of the Defendant's crime.

However, the Court must go on to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. A significant aggravating factor is the sheer length of time for which the Defendant was committing the crimes, this is of particular concern when considering the risk the Defendant could pose if allowed opportunity to attain office. In mitigation are a number of factors. As the Court has noted, the harm done by the crime appears minimal. The Defendant has no prior convictions and was new to the region, but that must be set against the fact that the Defendant's presence in the region arose only to commit these crimes. Of substantially greater credit to the Defendant is their entry of a prompt and complete guilty plea to each crime and recognition that their actions require punishment. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse and has renounced their previous association with the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators, these facts also do much to aid the Defendant.

Taking those factors together, the Court considers that the appropriate measure to take is not to substantially reduce the length of the punishment, but is to reduce its severity, such that the bulk of the period of punishment will not be served by a ban. However, the law requires the Court to pass a punishment including ejection and banning and the Court considers that it will, in all but the most unusual of circumstances, require a ban of a non-trivial length to meet the gravity inherent to the crime of Treason. In this case, the Court considers that the period of the ban should be 90 days. The Court considers it just and appropriate to also order the removal of the Defendant's citizenship and to remove their ability to seek and hold citizenship for the period of the ban.

As is stated above, the Court also considers that there must be recognition of the fact that the Defendant has shown a willingness to act to overthrow the region and to do so for a considerable period of time, such that steps must be taken to prevent undue risk to regional government. The Court considers, therefore, that should further be imposed removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant gains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 August 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 August 2022 there shall be no removal of the right.

The law also requires the Court to impose separate punishments in respect of Espionage and Gross Misconduct. Espionage must be punished by suspension of voting rights or speech, or both. Gross Misconduct must be punished by suspension of voting rights. Without rehearsing all of the factors discussed above, the Court considers that the appropriate punishment in respect of each of the crimes of Espionage and Gross Misconduct is a voting suspension of 90 days. The punishment for Espionage shall commence when the Defendant gains citizenship and shall last for a period of 90 days or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 August 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. The punishment for Gross Misconduct shall commence when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and shall last for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would suffer suspension of voting rights under the setence for Espionage, shall commence when they gain citizenship and last until 29 November 2021, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 29 November 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. Gross Misconduct must also be punishment by removal from office; while it appears to the Court that the Defendant holds no office, the Court does nonetheless, in order to ensure completeness, order the Defendant's removal from any office they may hold.

In relation to the punishment of Treason by banning, the Court considers that it must recognise that the Defendant has already spent a considerable period of time banned, with the approval of the Chief Justice, pending the conclusion of this trial. While that ban was not punitive in its purpose, its link to these proceedings is clear and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of fairness and proportionality in punishment, credit should generally be given for periods served banned pending trial. Consequently, credit is given for [x] days the Defendant has spent already banned, such that this part of the sentence will expire on 18 April 2020.

Overall, this will mean a sentence as follows:

• Ejection and Ban from the region for a period of 90 days, credit received for days banned, ending 18 April 2020;
• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold;
• Removal of citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 180 days, ending [date];
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office, for a one year period after attaining citizenship or until 31 August 2022 whichever shall be sooner
• Suspension of the right to vote, a 180 day period after attaining citizenship or until 29 November 2021 whichever shall be sooner

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 Ikea Rike.

 

[Just a Lore]

I have included the 180 day citizenship bar, though I feel like I do not follow the reasoning behind changing from 90 days. My original sense was that the citizenship bar was to be and should be concurrent with the ban from the region, but I may have misunderstood. I have adjusted the dates for the longstops on the other sentences to account for the fact that they could not start until later if there is a longer citizenship bar. The bolded purple words would need alteration if the bar on citizenship extends beyond the ban (and I think may need amending even if the bar is left at 90 days, to something along the lines of "of a similar period", to reflect the fact that credit being given for time banned won't extend to the citizenship bar, as they have not lost citizenship).

I have no strong feelings between 180 and 90 days. I just wrote that in as my suggestion. A 90 day period from sentencing would be fine with me. And you are correct about the March v April thing. Honestly dont know where I got March from.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have reverted the citizenship bar back to 90 days (together with correction of the other dates), it seemed we were content with a sentence of that length and I know that I am. I have reworded the gross misconduct suspended sentence again and I have reached a version I am satisfied with, unless there are other views. The wording around the length of the citizenship ban is amended slightly.

Spoiler

Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike

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

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

Spoiler: Section 1.1: Treason

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

Spoiler: Section 1.2: Espionage

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

Spoiler: Section 1.9: Gross Misconduct

25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

Spoiler: Chapter 2: Penal Code

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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
[...]
10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

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

Spoiler: Recommendation

Your Honours,

The state of The North Pacific thanks the court for the given time. As the prosecution in this criminal dispute, we hereby submit our recommendation for the sentencing of the person known under their North Pacifican alias ‘IkeaRike’. ‘IkeaRike’ is being charged with the following crimes:

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

In accordance with Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, the defendant can be punished with the following:

2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

Mitigating Factors

IkeaRike is a more newer member of our community, but had the rights and resources in order to read our laws knowing if caught, they can be prosecuted and banned. IkeaRike was also familiar with law making, specifically the legal code, which contains listed crimes that he could be prosecuted for, thus only making it more obvious that he had the resources and information about the crimes he was committing by spying on The North Pacific.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. Madjack, MadJack was accused of conspiring to commit Treason by providing the New Pacific Order with material aid (such as WA votes and potential military gameplay support) in exchange for undermining our government and helping him win the Delegacy. And, while the accusation was dropped and that IkeaRike hadn’t ran in any recent delegate elections, he was promised the resources to do so by the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators in exchange for undermining The North Pacific’s government for them.

General Comments

While the office of the Attorney General recognizes that the defendant may feel remorse for what they did, they only entered the region in the first place with the intent of undermining the region’s government, and that there is no definitive proof that they no longer had that intend of undermining our government. This, alongside the defendant recognizing that they committed these crimes, only supports the argument for banning IkeaRike from the region. And, while the defendant had asked for a one year sentence, this doesn’t stop them from returning one year later and continuing their efforts to undermine our regional government in the future.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General’s Office argues for the indefinite ban of IkeRike from The North Pacific and an indefinite suspension of their citizenship.

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. IkeaRike’
[/QUOTE]

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

Spoiler: Recommendation

I understand that such a decision is entirely at the court’s discretion, though I was unable to find strong precedent for this case in the TNP legal records. As such, I would recommend a complete ban for at minimum the amount of time I was a citizen. If my records are correct, this would have been April 24th, 2019, meaning if my math is also correct, 280 days. Given the severity of the acts, I would be more than understanding of a minimum of a year or more. Though again, I will defer to the court’s and prosecution’s discretion.

I would like to alter my previous sentencing recommendation on account for recent activity in the CCD. The important event is the assisting of Riakou of the CCD in a plot to devastate the CCD as a farewell “gift”. I would be happy to submit to the Court any documentation needed to support this claim, and would like to try and limit such a ban to at most the 280 days suggested prior.

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

Spoiler: 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

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

Spoiler: The North Pacific v Ravania

Sentence:

The Court orders that Ravania's voting rights be stripped for a period of 6 months. This means that, should Ravania join the Regional Assembly during the next six months, they will have no right to vote.

The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 2, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 2, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Treason by:

1. Ejection and ban from the region for a period of 90 days, with credit received for days already banned, ending 18 April 2020;
2. Removal of citizenship;
3. Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days from the date of sentencing, ending [date]; and,
4. Removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2022 there will be no suspension of this right.

.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 6, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 3, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Espionage by:

1. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there will be no suspension of this right.

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 25, and Chapter 2, clauses 1 and 10, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Ikea Rike, be punished for Gross Misconduct by:

1. Removal from any office the Defendant may hold; and,
2. Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and lasting for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would be subject to suspension of voting rights under the sentence for Espionage, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting until 29 August 2021, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right

The Defendant has committed a number of crimes: Treason, Espionage, and Gross Misconduct. They did so as part of their role in an operation organised by the head of a foreign government which is widely and rightly reviled. They acted as an agent of that foreign government and sought to infiltrate The North Pacific with a view to assisting in the overthrow of the regional government, in so doing they provided reports on the activities of the region, all contrary to their sworn oath. Their actions required them to mislead their fellow citizens and to betray the goodwill extended to them.

It is fortunate, however, that their operation appears to have had minimal impact, their governmental involvement being limited to the Regional Assembly and positions in the executive staff as opposed to the attainment of government office, and to have lead to the disclosure of little, if any, significant information from the region. It is apparent from the evidence supporting the indictment that the Defendant quickly became more preoccupied with the region's roleplay than with their original mission. Had there been a greater impact, this would be a far more serious matter.

The Court has considered the recommendations made by the parties and has considered both the case of The North Pacific v Madjack, to which it was referred, and The North Pacific v Ravania, to which it was not. The Court does not consider that Madjack is of assistance to the Court in this matter: the Defendant in that case was not sentenced for any of the crimes being considered here and the different underlying facts render the sentence for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct of little use. Ravania is more helpful, as it is a sentence for Espionage, but it is limited, due to the different purposes of the Espionage and to the fact that actual harm did result from the actions of the Defendant in Ravania.

The Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the length its sentence is around that proposed by the Defendant, though the Court does not consider that it would be right for the whole of the period to be punished by a ban. The Court is wholly unpersuaded that the justice of the case requires an indefinite ban as suggested by the prosecution, such a ban would be manifestly excessive when set against the actual impact of the Defendant's crime.

However, the Court must go on to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. A significant aggravating factor is the sheer length of time for which the Defendant was committing the crimes, this is of particular concern when considering the risk the Defendant could pose if allowed opportunity to attain office. In mitigation are a number of factors. As the Court has noted, the harm done by the crime appears minimal. The Defendant has no prior convictions and was new to the region, but that must be set against the fact that the Defendant's presence in the region arose only to commit these crimes. Of substantially greater credit to the Defendant is their entry of a prompt and complete guilty plea to each crime and recognition that their actions require punishment. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse and has renounced their previous association with the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators, these facts also do much to aid the Defendant.

Taking those factors together, the Court considers that the appropriate measure to take is not to substantially reduce the length of the punishment, but is to reduce its severity, such that the bulk of the period of punishment will not be served by a ban. However, the law requires the Court to pass a punishment including ejection and banning and the Court considers that it will, in all but the most unusual of circumstances, require a ban of a non-trivial length to meet the gravity inherent to the crime of Treason. In this case, the Court considers that the period of the ban should be 90 days. The Court considers it just and appropriate to also order the removal of the Defendant's citizenship and to remove their ability to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days.

As is stated above, the Court also considers that there must be recognition of the fact that the Defendant has shown a willingness to act to overthrow the region and to do so for a considerable period of time, such that steps must be taken to prevent undue risk to regional government. The Court considers, therefore, that should further be imposed removal of the right to seek and hold office, commencing when the Defendant gains citizenship and lasting for a period of one year or until 31 August 2022 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 August 2022 there shall be no removal of the right.

The law also requires the Court to impose separate punishments in respect of Espionage and Gross Misconduct. Espionage must be punished by suspension of voting rights or speech, or both. Gross Misconduct must be punished by suspension of voting rights. Without rehearsing all of the factors discussed above, the Court considers that the appropriate punishment in respect of each of the crimes of Espionage and Gross Misconduct is a voting suspension of 90 days. The punishment for Espionage shall commence when the Defendant gains citizenship and shall last for a period of 90 days or until 31 May 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 31 May 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. The punishment for Gross Misconduct shall commence when the Defendant completes their sentence for Espionage and shall last for a period of 90 days or, if the Defendant does not gain citizenship before the point at which they would be subject to suspension of voting rights under the sentence for Espionage, shall commence when they gain citizenship and last until 29 August 2021, provided that if the Defendant gains citizenship after 29 August 2021 there shall be no removal of the right. Gross Misconduct must also be punishment by removal from office; while it appears to the Court that the Defendant holds no office, the Court does nonetheless, in order to ensure completeness, order the Defendant's removal from any office they may hold.

In relation to the punishment of Treason by banning, the Court considers that it must recognise that the Defendant has already spent a considerable period of time banned, with the approval of the Chief Justice, pending the conclusion of this trial. While that ban was not punitive in its purpose, its link to these proceedings is clear and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of fairness and proportionality in punishment, credit should generally be given for periods served banned pending trial. Consequently, credit is given for the time the Defendant has spent already banned, such that this part of the sentence will expire on 18 April 2020.

Overall, this will mean a sentence as follows:

• Ejection and Ban from the region for a period of 90 days, credit received for days banned, ending 18 April 2020;
• Removal from any office the Defendant may hold;
• Removal of citizenship;
• Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days, ending [date];
• Removal of the right to seek and hold government office, for a one year period after attaining citizenship or until 31 May 2022 whichever shall be sooner
• Suspension of the right to vote, a 180 day period after attaining citizenship or until 29 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner

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 Ikea Rike.

Are there any other changes or corrections required? If not, I would say this should be the order of the Court and I will deliver as soon as is practicable.

 

[Lord Dominator]

Looks fine

 

[Just a Lore]

Has my sign off

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The Defendant has responded to my notification of sentence. While I don’t think it requires public posting, I think it would be appropriate to record it here.

Thank you for the decision. I'll make sure to keep to it. In addition, I've considered changing the image and name of this account to reflect the truth of this case, though I have yet to decide conclusively on that matter. I expect you all won't hear from me for at least a little while, as I have no intention of appeal, and likely not of returning to TNP. While I did enjoy time with a wonderful community, I now find myself with a group of people I care greatly about, and will try and ensure that the new home I have in the AWF becomes much better than that which it left behind.

-Inq