Passed Criminal Law Codification Act, 2021

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has passed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUKBICR

EUKBICR

The Devil
Citizen
Oct 25, 2020
1,729
175
Awards
6
Criminal Law Codification Act of 2021
Sponsored by We The People​

ACKNOWLEDGING that the present Supreme Court has issued certain guidelines for Hearings and Trials
WORRIED however that these guidelines may lack formal legal standing
BELIEVING that this potential issue can be fixed by codifying these guidelines into law


Section 1: Pre-trial

  1. Upon the Plaintiff and Defence being informed of the Hearing or Trial's acceptance, and at the request of the Presiding Justice, they shall have 48 hours to inform the Court, publicly, of who shall be representing them during the Hearing or Trial - if a representative is appointed they shall also be allowed to speak during the Hearing or Trial as they shall be considered a part of the Plaintiff or Defence. The full 48 hour period must go before the next stage of the Hearing or Trial commences as a chosen representative may become unable to fulfil their role.
  2. After this 48 hour period has ended the Plaintiff and Defence shall be given 72 hours to bring all evidence and witnesses, privately, to the attention of the Presiding Justice and Supreme Court; all evidence and witnesses used during the Hearing or Trial must be submitted.
  3. In exceptional circumstances the Supreme Court may, by vote, decide not to allow a specific witness or piece of evidence to be used during a trial. The Presiding Justice shall be required to confirm the evidence and witnesses permitted to both the Plaintiff and Defence, privately.


Section 2: The hearing


  1. After this 72 hour period the Plaintiff shall be given 48 hours to make an Opening Statement, following this 48 hour period (or whenever the Opening Statement is given) the Defence shall - likewise - be given a 48 hour period to make an Opening Statement. Opening Statements may not respond to the choice of legal representation or an Opening Statement that has already been given.
  2. Once both Opening Statements have been given, or when the two sets of 48 hours have passed, the Plaintiff shall be given 48 hours to interview their first witness - after which a 24 hour period shall be given for the Defence to cross examine the witness. Following this the Defence shall be given 48 hours to interview their first witness, with the Plaintiff then given 24 hours for cross examination. This process shall continue, with 48 hour and 24 hour periods, until there are no more witnesses left to to be interviewed and cross examined.
  3. The Plaintiff shall then be given 48 hours to respond to any questions raised by the Defence during the rest of the trial as well as clarify points they had previously made. Following this the Defence shall be given 48 hours to respond to any questions as well as clarify previously made points. No new arguments shall be allowed within these 96 hours unless it is in direct response to a question raised.
  4. After the two sets of 48 hours have ended the Plaintiff shall be allocated 48 hours to make a Closing Statement, after which the Defence shall be given 48 hours to make a Closing Statement. Evidence cannot be submitted under any circumstances during this phase.
  5. Following this the Hearing or Trial shall be closed and the Supreme Court shall meet to deliberate on the Hearing or Trial.

Section 3: Post-trial


  1. The Supreme Court shall issue a publicly available verdict within 96 hours after the conclusion of the trial, containing a finding of either guilt or innocence, as well as a punishment for the Defendant in the case of a “guilty” verdict.
  2. The Chief Justice has the task to either themselves exact the punishment or delegate the task to one or multiple fitting Regional Officers or administrative staff. The sentence shall be executed within a 168 hour period after the verdict is published.


Section 4: Miscellaneous



  1. The proceedings of a Hearing or Trial shall be self-contained within a single thread on the forum, unless the action is private - such as the submittal of evidence, discussion between members of the Plaintiff and Defence and the deliberations of the Supreme Court.
  2. During the proceedings of a Hearing or Trial only the Presiding Justice shall be able to speak whenever it warrants. Witnesses, the Plaintiff and the Defence shall only speak when asked to or allowed to by the Presiding Justice. Non-Presiding Justices shall not be allowed to speak unless it is to inform the Hearing or Trial that the Presiding Justice or a legal representative is being replaced due to exceptional circumstances; all other members of the region shall be prohibited from speaking.
  3. In exceptional circumstances, and after interested parties are informed of the change, Presiding Justices may alter this timetable before and during a given Hearing or Trial.
  4. In the event that a legal representative has resigned, or been sacked, from their role the Hearing or Trial shall be paused for 48 hours during which time a replacement may be found. A 48 hour pause shall also occur in the event that the Presiding Justice has stepped down as the Presiding Justice, is considered inactive, or has stepped down from the Supreme Court.
  5. Exceptional circumstances which may compel the Court to exclude evidence or testimony include but are not limited to:
  • Suspicious circumstances regarding the collection of the evidence which makes it impossible to verify the veracity of the evidence in question
  • The testimony or evidence in question seemingly lacking any relevance

  1. Exceptional circumstances which may compel the Court to alter the timetable of the trial include but are not limited to:
  • A witness showing inability or unwillingness to answer questions
  • The matter in discussion being extremely complex or extraordinarily relevant which may warrant further discussion
  1. The above is considered binding from the moment the Court informs the parties that the Trial or Hearing has been accepted until the verdict is announced. Failure to comply to these rules whether in original or altered form can lead to warning or punishment from the Court administrated upon the offending party.
 
Hi!

I saw an issue in the current system without a clearly defined process for Supreme Court trials, and tried to mitigate the issue by codifying the Court’s current guidelines into law. While this Act and the guidelines are similiar, there are a few changes in wording and then of course the final chapter which is a creation of my own. I hope that through passing this Act we can clearly establish the rules of trials and hearings in the UDS

Thank you
 
  1. I humbly suggest a different name for this bill if it passes this chamber as not to cause confusion with UL-004.
  2. I believe this is attempt number 3 or 4 to exactly define the trial process in the Union. What makes this any different from the last few attempts?
    1. CL-015 was the original legal system act and that defined the starting timeline for the system but ultimately left the judiciary in charge of scheduling
    2. In the later repeal and introduction of CL-099, the system was removed to not require a specific timeline but instead outlined the steps needed to be taken with no specific timeline. This stood until the government wipe.
  3. The use of hours, while noble, makes my head spin trying to compute everything.
Based on past precedent and my personal beliefs, I am against the bill as it currently reads. While I understand the intent, I think the current procedures as written by the judicial system are better thought out than this proposal at this time.

..k
 
1: naming is no big deal really, but I think that they can be seperated quite easily
2: What makes this attempt different? Well, this is not based on my own or someone else’s personal ideals, but rather on preexisting guidelines which the Court have issued(to be clear, I have neither sought nor gotten the endorsement of the Court for this Act, my main point is that it derives majorly from their guidelines)

Regarding timetables, I have outlaid how the timetable can be adjusted and have given the Court relative freedom to change the scheudule when needed so I don’t think that’s something worth worrying about
 
What would occur if the Chief Justice was on LoA at the time the punishment was to be exacted?
 
First of all, 1 week is a pretty long time period and it seems unlikely that the Chief Justice would take a that long LoA during an ongoing trial unless for unavoidable reasons so I think it’s fine, additionally the CJ can delegate but it’s not specified when exactly such delegation takes place and I think it’s safe to say that few people would take issue if a Chief Justice delegated ahead of time(or even permamently delegated this task to someone else)
 
I move to close debate. (Aye)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aye to close
 
The ayes have it, motion is approved. I now open the amendment period.
 
I suggest that the act's title be amended, noting that it has nothing to do with codifying criminal law (we have ul-4 for that). Perhaps "The Trial Procedure Act" or something else will fit better.
 
If there are no more amendments, I move to close amendment period.
 
I concur with Senator Kade and vote Aye to close the period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back