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: The Court Process Amendment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Devolutionist
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: May 2230
Description[?]:
| It may surprise the house to see this bill proposed by the LD, but propose it we do. It is the view of the Liberal Devolutionists that open ended appeals are not conducive to a natural justice, and that appeals should be limited to circumstances where there has been a serious procedural error, such as to render the trial unfair or the result unsafe. I would make the following points: 1) Each person is entitled to a fair trial. A fair trial, and provided the trial they recieve is fair there is no need for appeal. 2) In criminal matters, Every person should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty they should be treated as criminals. Should it come down to a choice between the right of a convicted criminal to argue against the decision, and the right of a victim of crime to closure and see justice done, we must favour the victim. There will be times when convictions are wrongly recorded, but the best safeguard against this is ensuring the procedural integrity of the system, not going over and over the old ground. 3) In Civil matters, open ended appeals play into the hands of the wealthy. The 'little guy' when up against the very wealthy may be able to fund their day in court, it is harder to fund such court proceedings through countless spurious appeal. Let the case be heard and decided on its merits, and if the wealthy party loses let them pay rather than string the matter out for years until their opponent though in the right, must fold. |
Proposals
Article 1
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: Judgements may only be appealed against for grave procedural errors.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:33:19, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Vanuku Socialist Left Alliance | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | Im Sorry But I Disagree With The 2nd Point Even Convicted Criminals Have Rights |
| Date | 07:27:08, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | We agree with the statements made by the SD.. but ask where are the articles? |
| Date | 11:14:18, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | Thanks SD... we feel we can support this piece of legislation |
| Date | 12:19:53, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | What is a grave procedural error? Who defines it thus? Surely one would have to appeal in the first place to establish that a grave procedural error occurred. |
| Date | 12:43:58, May 19, 2006 CET | From | dAda rEvoluTion | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | This bill is a grave procedural error |
| Date | 12:54:17, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Social Devolutionist | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | The SD would define a grave procedural error as: "Any error, in the conduct of a hearing or in the gathering of evidence towards a hearing, which if known to the tribunal of fact may have materially altered the outcome of that hearing." A persons right to an appeal would arise upon their establishing a Prima Faciie case as to their having been a GPE (grave procedural error) whether a GPE had occurred and the effect of that, would be the subject of the appeal. There is no need for seperate hearings on the existence and then the effect of a GPE. In terms of the rights of convicts, The SD does not deny that convicted criminals have rights. They have rights which must be protected, however the fact of living in a community means that one persons rights will often conflict with anothers. The Fact of governing a community is often to decide whose right to prefer in a given situation. We have laws that limit a persons right of free speech, in favour of another right to be free from defamation. We have rights which limit a persons right to hunt, in favour of the communities right to a sustainable environment. I suggest merely that in this instabnce, where there is a conflict between the rights of the victim and the (properly convicted) perpetrator, we prefer the rights of the victim. The appropriate punishment of convicted criminals is consistent with international conventions on human rights. |
| Date | 13:00:51, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Social Devolutionist | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | I would thank the SDA, for their question. They have raised a valid query, which I hope I have gone some way to address. I thank also the VSLA, for their comment and hope also that the clarification addresses some of their concerns. Perhaps the honorable member for the Dada Revolution could set out his parties concerns in more detail than the radio friendly soundbite he has blessed us with so far? |
| Date | 13:24:51, May 19, 2006 CET | From | dAda rEvoluTion | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | the dAda rEvoluTion is against this bill, because we think that every citizen has the right to denounce a judiciary decision and ask it to be examined by another independant court. The procedural integrity of the system is not a guarantee sufficient for a fair trial. justice is not only a matter or procedure, it is also a matter to find the truth, and evaluation of the damages. Sometimes we've got corrupted judges, or political oriented jury. And what would happen if a new fact appears after the decision of the court? We can still have some sort of inequity in a court. Wealthy people are likely to have a better defense. |
| Date | 17:05:12, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Republican Federalists | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | When it comes to deciding between the rights of a justly convicted criminal and that of the victim, I will always defend the rights of the latter. Appeals are necessary in order to bring true justice to all parties concerned. However unlimited appeals makes a mockery of that justice. The law would be better served were the number of appeals clearly stated. In the absence of such a limit on appeals, I would support this bill. |
| Date | 23:34:13, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the The Court Process Amendment Act |
| Message | So really, there is a mini appeal hearing to decide whether the potential appellant can go through with a full appeal. I guess that works. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 151 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 85 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 324 |
| Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
| Random quote: "I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants." - A. Whitney Brown |