View Topic

1a. Title
1.1 This Act shall be cited as the "Judicial Offices Act".
1b. Purpose
1.2 The purpose of this Act is to create the offices of the Judiciary and outline due process.

2. The Offices of the Judiciary
2.1 In accordance with Section 3 (parts 1 and 2) of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath, upon acceptance of a case by the Storting, the Monarch will select a Peer from the Overhusen and two Skifra from the Underhusen. The Peer will serve the duration of the trial (or 1 month) as Chief Justice, and the Skifra will serve the duration of the trial (or 1 month) as Associate Judges.

2.2 The term of a judicial appointment lasts either the length of a case or a duration of 1 month from appointment, whichever comes first. At the end of the 1 month period, if the case is still being heard, it falls to the Monarch to reappoint members of the Storting to the Judiciary, or to the Speaker of the Undehusen and the Speaker of the Overhusen in the case of Monarchical absence.

2.3 A Peer or a Skifra of the Storting may not hold more than one judicial position at any one time if the combined number of members from both houses exceeds 14. If the combined number of members from both houses is less than 14, a Peer of Skifra may hold two judicial positions at any one time.

3. Powers of the Judiciary
3.1 Any Judge may call up to three witnesses on a given day to provide evidence on a case. A defendant can also request up to 3 witnesses in their defence on a given day.

3.2 After all evidence is heard by the Court, the three Judges must discuss their verdict privately and inform no-one of the judgement until it is publicly announced by the Chief Justice.

3.3 A Court can return a NOT GUILTY, a GUILTY or a RECOMMENDATION verdict.

• NOT GUILTY - The Court finds the defendant innocent of his/her charge or specific charges, if more than one is brought.
• GUILTY - The Court finds the defendant guilty of his/her charge or specific charges, if more than one is brought. The punishments for a GUILTY verdict are to be drawn from the Code of Criminal Law Act upon its passage.
• RECOMMENDATION - The Court finds the defendant either innocent or guilty but recommends special provisions be made that fall outside of the remit of the Code of Criminal Law Act. It is up to the Monarch to decide whether to implement these recommendations. A case can therefore have an INNOCENT - RECOMMENDATION verdict and a GUILTY - RECOMMENDATION verdict.

4. Due Process
4.1 When a Court is formed and a case brought before it, a topic must be created with the title laid out as follows by the Chief Justice:

• [CASE NUMBER][DEFENDANT NAME][CHIEF JUSTICE][DATE]

The first post must then outline the name and charge of the defendant, the name of the Chief Justice and the names of the Associate Judges. This post should be updated to list witnesses called and by whom.

4.2 Only the Court Officials (Chief Justice and the Associate Judges), the defendant and any witness called may post within the thread. Uninvolved citizens may observe the proceedings but cannot comment.

4.3 During the proceedings, a Court Official who calls a witness must pose their questions within the same post they summon that witness. A witness then has one post to provide their responses to the questions put to them. At any time, a Court Official may post a question(s) for the defendant so long as no other questions for the defendant are unanswered and so long as no witness has questions left to answer.

4.4 Once the Court feels it has enough evidence to reach a verdict, the Chief Justice must post to inform the public that the Officials are withdrawing to debate their verdict. From this point on, no-one is allowed to post in the thread until the next post by the Chief Justice announcing a verdict.

4.5 The Chief Justice will then post the verdict in the thread and lock it once he/she has done so. The verdict should go through charge by charge and provide guilty/not guilty/recommendations for each individual charge the defendant is in court for. Punishments will be assigned for each individual charge and enacted upon as soon as the verdict is posted.

4.6 If the Chief Justice and his Associate Judges feel more than 3 witnesses are required per day, they may argue the Monarch to raise the limit for the duration of a specific court case.

5. Recall and Appeal
5.1 The Monarch has the Right of Recall. If after a one week period has passed since a verdict was decided the Monarch wishes for a retrial, he/she may summon a new Court to hear the case again.

5.2 A defendant, if found guilty, may Appeal his/her case after 2 weeks have passed since a verdict was decided. To do so, a defendant must speak directly with the Monarch and gain his/her approval.

6. Compliance with previous and future law
6.1 Upon passage of the legislation, the Judicial Offices Act will enforce Section 3 [clause 1 and 2] of the Fundamental Laws.

6.2 Upon passage of the legislation, the Underhusen is required to present a Code of Criminal Law Act within the next term. At such a point, Section 3 Clause 3 of this Act regarding punishments for GUILTY verdicts is to be amended.

In accordance with procedure, this bill will be open to debate for 48 hours, whereupon Skifra can motion to vote or extend the debate. As usual, the Speaker or SPT (if active) can motion to expedite this bill.

I see no problem with this bill.

I see no problem, however I would like to ask that you change the following

, which ever is least.

to

, which ever comes first.

While it's nit picking it does help the flow, and makes it sound better...

Alteration made, Chanku.

Thank-you.

* Wintermoot uses his authority to address the Underhusen.

Holy shit, Weissreich! That has to be one of the most impressive pieces of legislation I've seen anywhere in NS. I feel like you took the uniqueness of our system from the Fundamental Laws and took it to the next level. That being said, I do have a few questions:

2.3 At no point may a Peer or a Skifra of the Storting hold more than one judicial position at any one time.

The odds of this happening are low, but what if we have more cases than Storting members to fill them? For example, we would have an issue if there were three cases at the same time during this term, because there are only 5 Skfria and you need 2 per case. Perhaps it should specify that this should be the case unless there are no remaining Peers or Skrifa that are not in a judicial position already.

3.1 Any Judge may call up to three witnesses on a given day to provide evidence on a case. A defendant can also request up to 3 witnesses in their defence on a given day.

Out of curiosity, why three a day? Is there a reason behind this number? Also, along with 4.3, does that mean that once summoned a witness has to post their reply that day, or can they do it later even though the Court has moved on to another 6 people? I don't necessarily have any issues with this. I'm just a little confused as to how it would work.

4.3 During the proceedings, a Court Official who calls a witness must pose their questions within the same post they summon that witness. A witness then has one post to provide their responses to the questions put to them. At any time, a Court Official may post a question(s) for the defendant so long as no other questions for the defendant are unanswered and so long as no witness has questions left to answer.

Another question...what if after a witness answered questions, it led to more questions? Would that witness need to be summoned again? And if so, if it were done on the same day, would that count as 2 of the 3 witnesses a Judge/defendant can call in a day?

Just a few questions and minor things more than anything...overall, the Act is awesome! You did a great job on this.

Holy shit, Weissreich! That has to be one of the most impressive pieces of legislation I've seen anywhere in NS. I feel like you took the uniqueness of our system from the Fundamental Laws and took it to the next level.

Thank you very much! I wanted to set something up that'd last and that was a little unique, and I'm glad you think I've succeeded

The odds of this happening are low, but what if we have more cases than Storting members to fill them? For example, we would have an issue if there were three cases at the same time during this term, because there are only 5 Skfria and you need 2 per case. Perhaps it should specify that this should be the case unless there are no remaining Peers or Skrifa that are not in a judicial position already.

When writing this section of the law I considered two ideas - namely:

• When is usage of the court system going to pick up? Probably not for a while.-
• If the usage picks up in the future, there's more likely to be a bigger Storting.

I decided that it'd be best to specify single case at a time so that there's no risk of any cross-contamination of evidence between cases or any risk of a Judge acting in their own interests. However, I could easily make that value a variable that depends on how many Skifra/Peers are in the sitting. If it's, say, 5 or 6 Skifra and 5 or 6 Peers it'd be a two case per member limit, and from 7 of each it's a one case limit? I don't see the need arising for too many court cases per month.

Out of curiosity, why three a day? Is there a reason behind this number? Also, along with 4.3, does that mean that once summoned a witness has to post their reply that day, or can they do it later even though the Court has moved on to another 6 people? I don't necessarily have any issues with this. I'm just a little confused as to how it would work.

The three a day limit is purely because I don't foresee the need for many more witnesses. In a region of about 400/500 people even up to over a thousand, you'll still have a smaller active member base who're likely to be involved in things like this. I suppose it's also a method of preventing one side of the argument dominating, as Judges call witnesses for both sides. By limiting how many an individual calls per day it prevents them owning discussion. As for posting, it's simply meaning that the Judge opens the floor to that particular witness, and he or she will focus on them until they reply. If someone is asking 3 different witnesses 3 different sets of questions it'll get rather confusing for everyone involved.

Another question...what if after a witness answered questions, it led to more questions? Would that witness need to be summoned again? And if so, if it were done on the same day, would that count as 2 of the 3 witnesses a Judge/defendant can call in a day?

No, once a witness is summoned on the third day, they're available for questioning that day. The next day they can be recalled but count as one of the 3 witnesses.

The three witness limit is entirely arbitrary and I'm thinking of adding a clause that allows the Court to argue the Monarch for a higher limit if they think it's necessary.

Skrifa may now motion to vote or extend debate.

I motion to vote.

The Chair recognizes a motion to vote made by The Honourable Alterra.

Is there a second?

I'm about to make a few alterations. I recommend withdrawing the motion until after you all re-read it.

EDIT: 4.6 has been added and 2.3 altered.

I second the motion made by Alterra

The motion to vote has been seconded by The Honourable Chanku.

The Chair will now bring this to a vote.

Due to this bill reaching the required amount of votes to pass the Underhusen, the Chair hereby closes this debate.