View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Case Selection Procedure Act

Case Selection
2. Upon filing of a case in the Citizen's Platform, the Speaker of the
    Underhusen and the Chairman of the Overhusen shall decide on the
    acceptance of a case. Upon the posting of both positions, should
    they oppose they shall have 48-hours to come to an agreement. If
    neither of them can come to an agreement then the case shall be
    voted upon by both branches.
  2.1 If two members of either branch disagree with the decision by the
       Speaker and the Chairman then, upon public announcement of such
       it shall be voted upon by both branches.
    2.1.1 disagreements must be voiced within a 48-hour period after the
            decision
  2.2 The voting shall be conducted as a normal law, but shall be
       whether or not the case becomes a trial. Should it fail then the
       case shall be denied. Should it pass it shall be accepted.
3. The Storting must consider the case, unless it is withdrawn before
    both the chairman and the speaker have commented on it.
4. No case shall be withdrawn during consideration, or after acceptance

Due to the lack of any actual procedure I feel like this is necessary.

Well, if we can't agree on a new judicial system, we might as well fix the current one the best we can.

The only issue I have is with section 4. What if a settlement is reached between two parties after a case is accepted or starts and a trial is no longer necessary?

Well atm it would be somewhat impossible but I do plan on adding in a mechanism to motion for dismissal and/or a mechanism to have both parties publicly announce that they are dropping the case.

I personally think the best way to go about it is to allow the judges to dismiss cases with or without prejudice in the event of a settlement. In real life, settlements are sometimes rejected by judges, especially in criminal cases, so this would give the judiciary power to accept or deny a settlement.

Just my opinion though. Perhaps others have better ideas.

Hrm alright, although that in itself would require an overhaul of the Judicial Offices Act, of which I plan on doing.

I have to echo the concerns of Moot, but the legislation is good otherwise. I would be happy to introduce this before the Underhusen.

Well I'm still deciding whether I should just release a somewhat large amendment to the Judicial Offices Act or to just rewrite it.

Chanku, do you want me to introduce it or will you rewrite and re-release it later?

Chanku, do you want me to introduce it or will you rewrite and re-release it later?

Go ahead and introduce the bill now.

I just want to say that while the measure failed, I appreciate Chanku's attempt at small-scale judicial reform. Judicial reform has been a difficult subject to tackle in the region, for sure.