[PASSED] Regional Bar and Standing Act

Gorundu:
I'm not sure I like the Bar Commission idea. I think it just adds too much complexity to the system for me. Though I want to check: the proposal currently provides for life appointment to the position for the two appointed positions?

I don't particularly like the change that complainants can now drop a case at any time either. Just because a specific person first lodged a case doesn't mean there aren't other people interested in the outcome. I don't feel the power to discontinue the case should rest with one individual. I'm fine with the complainant dropping a case after the prosecutor drops it, since that involves two people in agreement.
Click to expand...

The bar commissioners are not meant to be life appointments, they are supposed to have terms but I neglected to add that language because I simply replaced the Court with the bar commission. Good catch. I meant to emulate the EC here with a longer 6 month term, so I will add that to the next revision.

My bill removes RA confirmation from prosecutors. The bar commission is managing and developing the bar which is necessary for all prosecutors. This process allows them to have a say. It is a little more than before, but still easier than the old prosecutor system, in my view. I could have just made them all appointees but previous experience tells me that it wouldn't go over so well - that's why we had the prosecutor confirmation process in the first place.

You will probably appreciate me changing the dropping the case thing back to prior setup, given my exchange with Dreadton.

Pathoal:
People should be free to have anyone represent them in Court. Whether or not they pick someone from the approved lawyers club is their business. I might suggest that Court-appointed defence counsel must come from the Bar.

I am somewhat unsure of the need for this, as Court sentences often involve suspension from holding government office in any case.

You probably need to update this because the complainant is no longer allowed to simply manage the prosecution of the case themselves per the terms of the bill.
Click to expand...

I think letting them pick whoever they want to defend them would hurt the effort to professionalize this process a bit. So this may end up being an agree to disagree thing. I may be open to allowing for a waiver system, if the demand is there.

It may be unnecessary but not every sentence does that. We don't want people who have violated the law and are being punished by the Court to...present themselves in Court. It' just improper.

You have caught some language that yes, needs to be edited to reflect for the change in complainants being able to prosecute cases themselves.
 
Pallaith:
The bar commissioners are not meant to be life appointments, they are supposed to have terms but I neglected to add that language because I simply replaced the Court with the bar commission. Good catch. I meant to emulate the EC here with a longer 6 month term, so I will add that to the next revision.

My bill removes RA confirmation from prosecutors. The bar commission is managing and developing the bar which is necessary for all prosecutors. This process allows them to have a say. It is a little more than before, but still easier than the old prosecutor system, in my view. I could have just made them all appointees but previous experience tells me that it wouldn't go over so well - that's why we had the prosecutor confirmation process in the first place.

You will probably appreciate me changing the dropping the case thing back to prior setup, given my exchange with Dreadton.
Click to expand...
There's not really much more for me to say here. I don't like adding more positions to this system, and I think the Court is very well-positioned to oversee the administration of the bar given they are the ones the bar members will interact with, but it's not a deal breaker for me. Other than that I'm happy with the bill as it stands.
 
As promised I made the revisions I mentioned. however, I opted to completely remove the clause about the complainant dropping the charges - with no confirmation mechanism, once a prosecutor is chose, they're active. If a complainant decides to drop charges before it gets that far, it should be simple enough to roll things back. They can still decide to drop it if the prosecutor decides to drop it later, but they can also ask for a new one.

The bar commissioners now have 6 month terms starting when they take their oath, and only the RA can remove them. I also clarified that the Court elects the justice who serves on the bar commission, similar to how they pick the chief justice.
 
I know we have a lot of business coming to the RA all at once, but I was hoping to get a sense if anyone had any further thoughts on this bill?
 
Pallaith:
I think letting them pick whoever they want to defend them would hurt the effort to professionalize this process a bit. So this may end up being an agree to disagree thing. I may be open to allowing for a waiver system, if the demand is there.
Click to expand...
I understand why it might hinder professionalization in a sense, but for me it is a matter of both basic rights and the fact that not every legal talent is necessarily going to be on the Regional Bar, considerably limiting the number of options available to defendants.
Pallaith:
It may be unnecessary but not every sentence does that. We don't want people who have violated the law and are being punished by the Court to...present themselves in Court. It' just improper.
Click to expand...
It’s not necessarily improper if the Court has ruled that the offence committed does not warrant a prohibition from office. If that person can legally be in Court as a Justice or a THO I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to present themselves as counsel.
Pallaith:
The bar commissioners now have 6 month terms starting when they take their oath, and only the RA can remove them. I also clarified that the Court elects the justice who serves on the bar commission, similar to how they pick the chief justice.
Click to expand...
I also feel that this Bar Commission is more bureaucratic than it needs to be, especially in its appointment process. Is there a reason why the Commission couldn’t be selected in the same way as the EC?

Another minor nitpick: change “Section 3.6 The Court Examiner” to “Section 3.6 Court Examiner”
 
@Pathoal Your minor nitpick is accepted.

Given how people felt about selection of prosecutors, I thought they would appreciate a bit of balance in selecting the bar commission. It would certainly be easier to fill the commission with appointees confirmed by the RA. I would note however that it’s actually much easier to fill this commission than the EC, because the delegate and Court’s picks are basically immediate. There’s more variety there yes but technically, it’s a simpler system bureaucratically speaking. And the term length and the RA having removal power over them is in fact exactly the same as how the EC is handled.

As for your other concerns, I appreciate that you feel the limitation on potential defense counsel could be a hardship, but I believe the trade off in quality may be worth it. You don’t need a whole lot of people on the bar for them to have viable choices. As I said, a waiver for this requirement could settle this, perhaps in the event no members of the bar are able to serve as defense, or they refuse and the defendant is concerned with the counsel available.

Someone who is servicing a judicial sentence doesn’t have to be barred from holding political office for that to be concerning. Someone convicted may still have a hurdle to jump to get elected to something. But that’s not the same thing as serving in a judicial capacity. Someone whose punishment includes a probation on serving in office committed a crime that would warrant keeping them away from office. Being a litigant isn’t a political office, but one where you have to know the law, apply it seriously, and respect it. By definition someone who is serving a judicial sentence did not do that. Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Pallaith:
As for your other concerns, I appreciate that you feel the limitation on potential defense counsel could be a hardship, but I believe the trade off in quality may be worth it. You don’t need a whole lot of people on the bar for them to have viable choices. As I said, a waiver for this requirement could settle this, perhaps in the event no members of the bar are able to serve as defense, or they refuse and the defendant is concerned with the counsel available.
Click to expand...
I note that this is also a matter of constitutional rights. Article 7 of the Bill of Rights specifies that “7. When charged with criminal acts […] A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. […]” and I think that if defence counsel is limited to this Regional Bar it violates the right to have any counsel, and certainly the right to have the counsel be of the defendant’s choosing.
 
Pathoal:
I note that this is also a matter of constitutional rights. Article 7 of the Bill of Rights specifies that “7. When charged with criminal acts […] A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. […]” and I think that if defence counsel is limited to this Regional Bar it violates the right to have any counsel, and certainly the right to have the counsel be of the defendant’s choosing.
Click to expand...
So we have a constitutional right to crap counsel. So it is then. Regrettably I will have to make this alteration. Maybe you should have led with that :P
 
I have amended version 3 to remove the requirement that all litigants be members of the bar. I figured, since it was unconstitutional to formulate it otherwise, I did not need to make it a fourth version. I will reserve the version 4 moniker for any other changes that are made as a result of your suggestions. Are they any others?

By the way @Pathoal I forgot about your nitpick - why are you suggesting that change? The wording currently is identical to similar situations in the Legal Code, so why would I remove the definite article?
 
Last edited:
Pallaith:
By the way @Pathoal I forgot about your nitpick - why are you suggesting that change? The wording currently is identical to similar situations in the Legal Code, so why would I remove the definite article?
Click to expand...
I just don’t like it. :P If it’s throughout the Legal Code I’d say just leave the article and get rid of them all in one big amendment later…
 
Pallaith:
@Fregerson I would like to motion this to a vote.

I will rely on the formal debate period to allow for any last minute suggestions.
Click to expand...
Motion to vote has been noted.

Formal Debate will last for 5 days, ending at (time=1656107220) (your forum time). A vote will then be opened shortly after.
 
Perhaps I should have done a re-read of the revised bill before it went to vote, but I've spotted a few issues:

Clause 14 should specify the term length is for appointed Bar Commissioners. I'm assuming the intention is that the Justice serves only for the duration of their judicial term (4 months).

I feel clause 24 should say "If the complainant has not requested another prosecutor or withdrawn the complaint..." (with the addition in bold). Otherwise it just says if the complainant hasn't withdrawn, it'll be considered withdrawn, which makes no sense.

Clasue 33 and 34 don't make much sense in that order. I think they should be swapped around.

I'm not sure if that's enough to vote against the bill - perhaps they can be fixed after it's passed.
 
Gorundu:
Perhaps I should have done a re-read of the revised bill before it went to vote, but I've spotted a few issues:

Clause 14 should specify the term length is for appointed Bar Commissioners. I'm assuming the intention is that the Justice serves only for the duration of their judicial term (4 months).

I feel clause 24 should say "If the complainant has not requested another prosecutor or withdrawn the complaint..." (with the addition in bold). Otherwise it just says if the complainant hasn't withdrawn, it'll be considered withdrawn, which makes no sense.

Clasue 33 and 34 don't make much sense in that order. I think they should be swapped around.

I'm not sure if that's enough to vote against the bill - perhaps they can be fixed after it's passed.
Click to expand...
Appreciate you looking out. For the term thing, there’s an implicit assumption that a re-elected Justice will continue to be a bar commissioner for however much time is left in their term. I agree that in practice you could theoretically see a string of one-term justices who keep getting chosen to serve on the commission. In practice, that third member may not be there for 6 months. I don’t think that’s necessarily an issue though - the point of that aspect of the system is that one member is a member of the Court.

At first blush I agree that clause 24 looks like it doesn’t do anything. But you have to consider it with clause 23 in mind. The language you proposed is in fact how it works - they have the option to request another prosecutor. If they don’t withdraw themselves or ask for one, the case is withdrawn after 7 days. Legally it’s clear what happens, the wording you would have liked to see just emphasizes (spells out very explicitly) what the law is. It may add more clarity, but in my personal reading of the law it’s redundant and I don’t like to see the law repeat itself unnecessarily.

We will have to agree to disagree on the clause order for the examiner. I can’t see how it doesn’t make sense whichever order you put them in.
 
Pallaith:
Appreciate you looking out. For the term thing, there’s an implicit assumption that a re-elected Justice will continue to be a bar commissioner for however much time is left in their term. I agree that in practice you could theoretically see a string of one-term justices who keep getting chosen to serve on the commission. In practice, that third member may not be there for 6 months. I don’t think that’s necessarily an issue though - the point of that aspect of the system is that one member is a member of the Court.
Click to expand...
So is the intention that a Justice would serve a 6-month term if they were re-elected, and if they were not, then the position will be vacant and another Justice would be selected for a 6-month term?
Pallaith:
At first blush I agree that clause 24 looks like it doesn’t do anything. But you have to consider it with clause 23 in mind. The language you proposed is in fact how it works - they have the option to request another prosecutor. If they don’t withdraw themselves or ask for one, the case is withdrawn after 7 days. Legally it’s clear what happens, the wording you would have liked to see just emphasizes (spells out very explicitly) what the law is. It may add more clarity, but in my personal reading of the law it’s redundant and I don’t like to see the law repeat itself unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
I think we just disagree on how we like our laws written. I'd much more prefer everything written out clearly, even if it means some repetition. Plus there is a way to word this without repetition - perhaps "If the complainant takes no action within 7 days..."
Pallaith:
We will have to agree to disagree on the clause order for the examiner. I can’t see how it doesn’t make sense whichever order you put them in.
Click to expand...
I just think it sounds a bit weird to start a section codifying a position with "Whenever the position is vacant...". Makes more sense to have the first clause describe the duties of the position, and then describe the method of appointment.
 
Gorundu:
So is the intention that a Justice would serve a 6-month term if they were re-elected, and if they were not, then the position will be vacant and another Justice would be selected for a 6-month term?
Click to expand...

Simple answer: yes.

The six month term thing isn’t as important as the justice having four month terms, and their electoral fate determines their tenure on the bar commission. What you have is a law that neatly works for 2/3 of the commissioners. Going back to your point about preferences for how laws are written, additional wording to explicitly point out how this works differently for the justices is one option, but I think we can handle knowing that in practice a justice may not frequently get to serve 6 months in this capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top