Judiciary Bill (WITHDRAWN)

[Gabu]

As introduced by Sen. Colin Wixted:

Judiciary Bill

Co-Sponsor: Senator SamSpade (U-LA)

Section 1: Divisions of the Supreme Court

There shall be three divisions of the Supreme Court:

   i. The Criminal Division
   ii. The Civil Division
   iii. The Electoral Division

Section 2: Criminal Division

1. The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court shall sit to try crimes against Atlasia.

2. Each trial shall be presided over by one Justice of the Court as mandated by the Constitution.

3. Trials shall be by jury unless the defendant shall enter a guilty plea or both the defendant and the prosecution shall agree to a Judge only trial.

4. Sentencing shall be by the presiding Justice, anything in previous statute to the contrary not withstanding.

Section 3: Civil Division

1. The Civil Division of the Supreme court shall sit to hear cases initiated by an individual citizen or group of citizens against the Republic of Atlasia or other citizens, excepting those cases under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Division.

2. Each case shall be presided over by one Justice of the Court, with a jury trying the evidence if the defendant shall wish it, otherwise with the Justice trying the evidence.

3. The presiding Justice shall award damages to the plantiff and order such writs as he shall feel the verdict of the jury and the weight of evidence justify.

Section 4: Electoral Division

1. The Electoral Division of the Supreme Court shall sit to hear cases concerning electoral disputes and cases concerning the Department of Forum Affairs.

2. Each case shall be presided over by one Justice of the Court.

3. The presiding Justice shall order such writs as he shall feel necessary to uphold the law.

Section 5: Full Court Consideration

1. Cases concerning the interpretation of the text of the Constitution or the constitutionality of a legislative or executive action shall be considered by the entire Supreme Court in the first instance, anything in the previous sections not withstanding.

2. The entire Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction to all cases of the Divisions of the Supreme Court as to both Law and Fact.

3. The entire Supreme Court shall also have original jurisdiction over cases not otherwise assigned original jurisdiction by this statute.

Section 6: Assignment to Divisions

1. The Supreme Court shall assign Justices to Divisions of the Supreme Court as it shall wish for one month terms on the first day in each calender month.

2. No more than one Justice shall be assigned to each division of the Court in each month, excepting such circumstances as provided for in other clauses of this Section.

3. Each Justice may serve on a maximum of two Divisions of the Supreme Court, excepting such circumstances as provided for in other clauses of this Section.

4. In the event that Justices shall be absent from the Forum due to vacation or other reasons then Justice(s) may be temporarily appointed to preside over the relevant Division(s) during the absence.

5. In the event that a backlog of cases occurs on a Division of the Supreme Court, then additional Justices may be seconded to the relevant Division as the Court may see fit until such backlog is cleared.

6. Once a case is opened on a Division it shall remain under the same Justice for the duration of its consideration, even where a new Justice is assigned to the Division at the beginning of a new month, except where a Justice shall leave the Supreme Court in mid-trial, in which case a new Justice shall be selected to take over the trial.

7. A Justice may not be presiding over more than one case per Division at any one time.

I hereby open debate on this bill.

[Sam Spade]

My two questions (for Peter) are these:

Section 2: Criminal Division
4. Sentencing shall be by the presiding Justice, anything in previous statute to the contrary not withstanding.

Does this mean that the Justice can do whatever he wants to, regardless of the sentencing guidelines we set out in the Criminal Law Act?
Section 3: Civil Division

3. The presiding Justice shall award damages to the plantiff and order such writs as he shall feel the verdict of the jury and the weight of evidence justify.

I assume that this allows laws that the Senate may pass dealing with damages and punishment, etc (when I get down to writing a Civil Law bill).  I'm really just checking on that.
Other than that, I have no questions.

[12th Doctor]

I'm not really sure that I see why this is nessesary.

[Colin]

I'm not really sure that I see why this is nessesary.

This is more of a precautionary measure than anything. The current Supreme Court seems to be swamped every two months or so with a hoard of complaints and cases. This backup can be avoided by having each judge function as a seperate part of the judiciary. This also sets forth president in Civil, Criminal and Electoral cases that will actually help the court in its decisions on the matter.

[Gabu]

Senators have eight more hours to debate this before this comes up for a vote.

[Sam Spade]

I would like my questions above to be answered on this bill by Mr. VP Peter Bell (the author).

Otherwise, I'm going to stall this bill from voting until he does answer.

[Peter]

Section 2: Criminal Division
4. Sentencing shall be by the presiding Justice, anything in previous statute to the contrary not withstanding.

Does this mean that the Justice can do whatever he wants to, regardless of the sentencing guidelines we set out in the Criminal Law Act?

Thats not what it was meant to do, but its managed to do that too. The original intent was to firmly place sentencing power with the presiding Judge because in previous statute (before Omnibus Crime) it was unclear who actually did the sentencing. I suggest you amend to ensure that statutory sentencing guidelines remain in force.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes
I've thought a lot about this bill recently and its necessity: The only reason I would consider it necessary is if the Supreme Court has to handle Civil cases. The Senate needs to have a debate as to whether its really necessary to open the Court up to that; Initially I was supportive of the idea, but now that I think about it more and more, I've become more skeptical.

I don't think anybody doubts the necessity for a criminal code - after all we cannot have people continually cheating, having this made known publically, and then managing to get away with sh**t scott free - It clearly brings the Republic into disrepute.

I can see a civil court being used to simple settle personal disputes that have gone sour. Whilst its something a real Justice system does have to deal with, I'm not so sure ours should be. It would add a new dimension to the "game" but I don't whether its a dimension we should want to add - all I can see it doing is enflaming bitterness, not serving to actually make it more enjoyable.

[MAS117]

This bill is just unecessary. I see where your coming from Pete, but frankly with only a 3 member Court its just not needed. I will be voting no. 

[Sam Spade]

This question is, as Peter so nicely laid out, whether we want to lay out a Civil Law in these matters.

If we don't, then this bill is probably unnecessary.

My fundamental thoughts are these.

If the Atlasian population was large enough, to say where there were 200 or 300 active members and 400 or 500 citizens, then I think a bill like this would be very necessary and we would probably need to go into the spectrum of civil law, just to keep things orderly

As of right now though, I think we just need to add laws to the criminal law statutes and deal with those and electoral cases as they may come, unless the situation I talked about above arises.

[Colin]

This question is, as Peter so nicely laid out, whether we want to lay out a Civil Law in these matters.

If we don't, then this bill is probably unnecessary.

My fundamental thoughts are these.

If the Atlasian population was large enough, to say where there were 200 or 300 active members and 400 or 500 citizens, then I think a bill like this would be very necessary and we would probably need to go into the spectrum of civil law, just to keep things orderly

As of right now though, I think we just need to add laws to the criminal law statutes and deal with those and electoral cases as they may come, unless the situation I talked about above arises.

Or unless we have a huge wave of Civil Cases to deal with which seems unlikely.

PPT Gabu I would like to withdraw this bill on the grounds that it is not needed at the present time.

[MAS117]

This question is, as Peter so nicely laid out, whether we want to lay out a Civil Law in these matters.

If we don't, then this bill is probably unnecessary.

My fundamental thoughts are these.

If the Atlasian population was large enough, to say where there were 200 or 300 active members and 400 or 500 citizens, then I think a bill like this would be very necessary and we would probably need to go into the spectrum of civil law, just to keep things orderly

As of right now though, I think we just need to add laws to the criminal law statutes and deal with those and electoral cases as they may come, unless the situation I talked about above arises.

Or unless we have a huge wave of Civil Cases to deal with which seems unlikely.

PPT Gabu I would like to withdraw this bill on the grounds that it is not needed at the present time.

Very good, thank you Senator.

[Gabu]

Okay, this bill is withdrawn.