Ease of Prosecution Act (EPA)

Comfed

Comfed

Minister
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Comfed
Discord
comfed
Section 3.3 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific shall be amended as follows:

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure


11. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.


12. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will appoint a prosecutor to manage prosecution of the case.


13. Any person who presents criminal charges to the Court may withdraw these charges at any time except under the following circumstances:
  • The Court has reached a verdict
  • The defendant has plead guilty to any charges
  • Someone has filed a request for review pertaining to the case

14. Any citizen may be appointed as a prosecutor. Citizens will be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment as a prosecutor.


15. The designated prosecutor will be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly. The Delegate and other officials who may have appointed a prosecutor do not have the power to remove a prosecutor.


16. In the event the Regional Assembly is unable to confirm a prosecutor within 30 days of the acceptance of charges, the Delegate, or next available person in the Line of Succession if necessary, will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case with the agreement of the Speaker. If the Speaker is the defense or the accused, the Deputy Speaker with the longest continuing period of citizenship who is not the defense or the accused shall act as the Speaker for this purpose.

17. No one may prosecute or appoint prosecutors to a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense.


18. If the original prosecutor is unable to see a case to completion, another prosecutor will be selected by the same procedure as the original prosecutor.


19. If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint or request that a new prosecutor be appointed, in which case another prosecutor must be selected through the same procedure as the original prosecutor.


20. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case, request a new prosecutor, or withdraw the complaint within 14 days of the prosecutor declining the case, the case shall be considered dismissed.


21. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to:


  • Acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case;

  • Representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial.


22. When the management of the prosecution of a case is completed, all records associated with that prosecution will be transferred to the Court.
Click to expand...
Section 3.3 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific shall be amended as follows:

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure


11. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.


12. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will appoint a prosecutor to manage prosecution of the case.


13. Any person who presents criminal charges to the court may withdraw these charges at any time except under the following circumstances:
  • The Court has reached a verdict
  • The defendant has plead guilty to any charges
  • Someone has filed a request for review pertaining to the case



13.14 Any citizen may be appointed as a prosecutor. Citizens will be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment as a prosecutor.


14.15. The designated prosecutor will be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly. The Delegate and other officials who may have appointed a prosecutor do not have the power to remove a prosecutor.


15.16. In the event the Regional Assembly is unable to confirm a prosecutor within 30 days of the acceptance of charges, the Delegate, or next available person in the Line of Succession if necessary, will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case with the agreement of the Speaker. If the Speaker is the defense or the accused, the Deputy Speaker with the longest continuing period of citizenship who is not the defense or the accused shall act as the Speaker for this purpose.


16.17. No one may prosecute or appoint prosecutors to a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense.


17.18. If the original prosecutor is unable to see a case to completion, another prosecutor will be selected by the same procedure as the original prosecutor.


18.19. If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint or request that a new prosecutor be appointed, in which case one must be selected through the same procedure as the original prosecutor.


19.20. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case, request a new prosecutor, or withdraw the complaint within 14 days of the prosecutor declining the case, the complaint shall be considered withdrawn.


20.21. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to:


  • andActing as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case;

  • andRepresenting the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial.


21.22. When the management of the prosecution of a case is completed, all records associated with that prosecution will be transferred to the Court.
Click to expand...

The remaining sections of Chapter 3 of the legal code shall be renumbered in numeric order to reflect the changes above.

When this bill is enacted the changes shall take effect immediately.



Changes:
  • If the prosecution discontinues a case, it would become possible to get a new prosecutor appointed.
  • If the RA can’t confirm a prosecutor and the Speaker has a conflict of interest, the Speaker no longer has to confirm the prosecutor. A deputy Speaker does.
  • It's now easier to drop charges.
 
Last edited:
We had a different problem in this case where the complainant couldn't withdraw charges until the prosecutor finally buckled after days of pressure from the complainant to discontinue. That's what needs fixed more. Prosecutors drop charges all the time, and there's no reason here to say they can't.
 
Sil Dorsett:
where the complainant couldn't withdraw charges until the prosecutor finally buckled after days of pressure from the complainant to discontinue. That's what needs fixed more. Prosecutors drop charges all the time, and there's no reason here
Click to expand...
I’m not writing this in response to TNP v Pigeonstan. I don’t think that prosecutors should have the power to discontinue a case. The power to run cases should be entrusted in the courts.
 
What you're asking for is not quite the court being empowered to adjudicate the case sua sponte, but it's pretty similar. The court is supposed to rule on what is being asked of them. When a prosecutor discontinues a case, then effectively the prosecutor is no longer asking the court for anything.

What would be reasonable, I think, would be if a prosecutor discontinues and the complainant doesn't want to drop the case or manage it themselves, the complainant could then ask for a new prosecutor to be appointed. That would be fine.

We do still need a mechanism for the complainant to discontinue a case at any time.
 
Sil Dorsett:
What you're asking for is not quite the court being empowered to adjudicate the case sua sponte, but it's pretty similar. The court is supposed to rule on what is being asked of them. When a prosecutor discontinues a case, then effectively the prosecutor is no longer asking the court for anything.

What would be reasonable, I think, would be if a prosecutor discontinues and the complainant doesn't want to drop the case or manage it themselves, the complainant could then ask for a new prosecutor to be appointed. That would be fine.

We do still need a mechanism for the complainant to discontinue a case at any time.
Click to expand...
You are probably right. I have amended this. Also I have fixed some other problems, like if the RA cannot confirm a prosecutor and speaker the accused or defence somehow, then the most senior deputy speaker would have to confirm the delegate's choice of prosecutor.
 
This has been amended to clean up the wording.
 
Last edited:
Commonly,
Code: 
[in][/in]
and
Code: 
[out][/out]
are used to indicate changes in the annotation.

One particular issue I can see with this is if the complainant disappears after filing the complaint and nobody wants to prosecute the case. As such, I don't think the last change to the legislation is necessary although I approve of the other changes.
 
When the RA has confirmed a prosecutor, the RA has accepted that prosecutor as representing the interests of the region in that case. Why shouldn't that prosecutor be able to withdraw charges?
 
Eluvatar:
When the RA has confirmed a prosecutor, the RA has accepted that prosecutor as representing the interests of the region in that case. Why shouldn't that prosecutor be able to withdraw charges?
Click to expand...
Because if it works that way than the prosecutor is granted too much power over the trial - if the accused is not guilty the court will find that out. The prosecution can still stop running the case, but if this passes the burden of prosecution won’t have to fall on the complainant.
 
Last edited:
I will submit this after 24 hours with no posts. Or on Monday. Whichever comes first.
 
Someone has been spending too much time in the GA. :P

You may wish to update the annotated part.

Lastly, might I suggest changing it to the Deputy Speaker with the longest continuing period of citizenship who is not the accused or the defence shall act as the Speaker for this purpose?
 
well i think that there needs to be more checks to this
like add
BUT
the case may require a higher margin to be indited to balance things
to make a way to drop a case without giving a verdict so that it may be re indited
and
a way for the TNP to have less support of the case
(as in it not getting endorsed by the exec staff)
 
Pigeonstan:
well i think that there needs to be more checks to this
like add
BUT
the case may require a higher margin to be indited to balance things
to make a way to drop a case without giving a verdict so that it may be re indited
and
a way for the TNP to have less support of the case
(as in it not getting endorsed by the exec staff)
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the justices decide which cases to accept. One justice, who is selected by the chief justice, decides the case.
 
Praetor:
Someone has been spending too much time in the GA. :P
Click to expand...
:D
Praetor:
You may wish to update the annotated part.

Lastly, might I suggest changing it to the Deputy Speaker with the longest continuing period of citizenship who is not the accused or the defence shall act as the Speaker for this purpose?
Click to expand...
Done and done. Also I fixed the tags like you suggested. Fixed the spelling of "defense". If this is actually a quirk of my country's English, please let me know!
 
Last edited:
Comfed:
I think I have got this where I want it so...
I move for a vote.
Click to expand...
The motion is noted and is now in Formal Debate, which shall last for 5 days, after which no further amendments or changes to the bill will be allowed. The Speakers Office will consider shortening Formal Debate to 3 days should the proposer wish it.
 
@Comfed I think these are reasonable changes. I’m a bit nervous at the prospect that this enables a case that was dropped, perhaps for good reasons, to be revived a number of times, but I have to weigh that against how unlikely such a scenario would actually be.

I agree with Sil that you really should put a mechanism here allowing the complainant to have the option to withdraw charges while the prosecutor is being chosen or between that moment and when the charges are accepted by the court.
 
I agree that prosecutors shouldn't be able to drop charges at all - their job isn't about whether or not someone should be prosecuted, just the prosecution.

However, I disagree on the unlimited right of the complainant to withdraw charges, as there needs to at some point be recognized that filing criminal charges isn't something you should be doing on a whim, or something that you know you can change your mind later just because. At most, the right of the complainant to withdraw charges should end once the Court has made a ruling of Guilty or Not-Guilty, which in the latter case the point is moot and the former case the individual charged has been establsihed to have committed a crime.
 
i just want to say the name would sound better as
EASE OF PROSECUTION ACT (EPA)
you dont even have to change the acronym
it is proven that as stated in the north pacific v pigeonstan case
not a lot of people are willing to read huge blocks of text so
they will mainly vote on the name so making sure it sounds nice goes a long way

yes but also in the sake of balance maybe make it so that if the prosecuetor drops 3 times the case would be dropped
 
Pallaith:
So there will be no addressing the withdrawal of charges aspect then @Comfed ?
Click to expand...
i think that there needs to be a rule that if the prosecuetion drops the case 2-4 times the case will be dropped from the courts and need to be reindited
and if it is reindited it cannot be reindited again
 
Pallaith:
So there will be no addressing the withdrawal of charges aspect then @Comfed ?
Click to expand...
Addressed - sorry, I did this the other day but forgot to let you know.
Pigeonstan:
i think that there needs to be a rule that if the prosecuetion drops the case 2-4 times the case will be dropped from the courts and need to be reindited
and if it is reindited it cannot be reindited again
Click to expand...
I think you might have a conflict of interest here, pal :P
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top