We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Judicial Reforms of 2951
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2952
Description[?]:
| .......... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the administration of law.
Old value:: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Current: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Proposed: There is a uniform system of courts across the nation.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right to appeal against a judgement rendered by a court.
Old value:: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Current: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Proposed: Every person has the right to appeal to the Minister of Justice to have a judgement reviewed by another court.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:40:16, June 09, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | Rt Hon Marchioness Chukulate MP, Justice Secretary: Madam Speaker, it is a fundamental civil liberty that all individuals should have the right to appeal. That is a fundamental legal right that should never be changed. |
| Date | 14:44:03, June 09, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | Rt Hon Baron Mancini MP, NSC Frontbencher, Madam Speaker, all people would still be entitled to an appeal! What is the justice secretary on about? The system proposed would mean that the Justice Secretary would sort out which appeals are on valid grounds and have a chance of success, rather than every single appeal having to go through the courts - slowing up and clogging the judicial system. |
| Date | 14:56:07, June 09, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the gentleman has just said in his statement there that not every individual would be entitled to an appeal. It would be entirely at the whim of whoever holds the office at the time. I would guarantee Madam Speaker that I would approve every single application for appeal, but subsequent Secretaries may not. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, it is not the place for government ministers to determine which appeals have a chance of success. We are not lawyers. The place for such decisions is the courtroom. Madam Speaker, we cannot accept the gentleman's argument that this will quicken the system. Given that this new system will require one individual to review every single application for appeal, it will leave the Justice Secretary with no time to do anything else! Furthermore, this bill also suggests that regional courts should be abolished and there should just be a national system. Madam Speaker, how will this quicken the system? |
| Date | 09:44:53, June 10, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, yet another point to the gentleman goes unanswered. Cannot say we are surprised by this clearly inept individual who has no respect for the Parliamentary system. The CLP want the gentleman to answer the points put to him in our previous statement. |
| Date | 09:55:45, June 10, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | Rt Hon Baron Mancini MP, NSC Frontbencher, My god, can we not have time to answer? Madam Speaker, perhaps the CLP should shut up for once and show a bit of patience? We would be more than happy to answer the question. The system would be quicker because only appeals with a genuine chance of success would go before the courts instead of those who have no chance - upon review of the Justice Minister obviously, who will decide such matters. This will mean less court cases which allows the courts to operate more efficiently. |
| Date | 11:51:23, June 10, 2010 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | A bold step into the right direction. We will support this. |
| Date | 13:41:58, June 10, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Judicial Reforms of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the gentleman had plenty of time to answer. In the Internet Service Provider Partial Nationalisation bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=293550) he gave the Labour Party just under 7 hours before making the exact same statement that we made above. We gave the gentleman almost nineteen hours, and given that he has spoken in this chamber elsewhere, he should not be surprised that we considered him to be ignoring our questions. Madam Speaker, we cannot understand how the gentleman believes that the system will be quickened by one individual reviewing cases. Surely, Madam Speaker, he would expect the Justice Secretary to review cases properly and indepth to be able to decide the future of the individual. That will take a great deal of time. There is then the fact that regional courts will be abolished and everything will be dealt with at a national level. Madam Speaker, whilst we understand that many cases will not be entitled to appeal under the new law, the Justice Secretary still has to review all of the details before being able to make a decision if she is to do her job properly. Madam Speaker, this has not been properly thought out. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 226 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 165 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "It is obvious that the laissez-faire ideology represents the interests of big business. For decades, the right-wing has opposed welfare programs and nationalised companies, in favour of big business disguised under 'economic liberty'." - Cecilia Xu, former Gaduri politician |