The HCEA

[Flip Molinar]

The Habeas Corpus Enforcement Act

WHEREAS The "right to a speedy trial" is guaranteed to all Talossan citizens under the Ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms; and

WHEREAS This right is not further clarified, nor in any way defined; and

WHEREAS the lack of explanation and definition of such an important right may cause that right to be subsequently denied the accused, with or without the intent of said right being denied; and

WHEREAS such an important right must be clear and concise in order to ensure the proper enforcement thereof; now

THEREFORE

In the interest of providing the accused with the rights granted to him by the ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, the following rights shall be considered to be inalienable and shall be afforded to all citizens in civilian trials:

a. The accused must be informed of the charges against him by the Crown within seven days of said charges being accepted by any national or provincial cort.
b. Such notification must be submitted to the accused in writing, by either an electronic medium such as email, a typed letter, or by a handwritten letter. A copy of every such notice shall be archived in the Royal Archives by the Royal Archivist immediately after he receives a copy of said notice. If the notice is given in the form of a hand-written letter, the Royal Archivist shall make a copy of the letter in an electronic format, such that it may be added to the Royal Archives.
c. The Crown shall have up to 90 days from the time of notification of the accused in which to prepare its case. If a case is not prepared by the Crown within the allotted time, a mistrial shall be declared and the charge or charges against the accused shall be rendered null and void.
d. If a case is not prepared within the 90 days limit then the prosecution may request up to an additional 30 days to prepare its case, which shall be granted or denied by the justice assigned to the case. This section takes precedence over section [c]
e. The decision shall be based on the legitimacy of reasons given by the Crown, in the interests of justice, equality, and neutrality.
f. If a case is declared null and void then final jeopardy shall apply unless the prosecution is able to provide new evidence against the accused with which to build a case. If a new case is tried then the old evidence may not be used or taken into consideration. A new case must meet the same statute of limitations as described previously.


Urent q'estadra sa:

Flip Molinar (MC-FGP)
Eovart Grischun (MC-PP, FGP)
Xhorxh Asmour (MC-ZPT)

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2009 22:30:43 GMT -6 Flip Molinar said:

If a charge is considered to be particularly heinous the Crown shall have up to 730 days to prepare a case. If a case is not prepared the prosecution may request up to an additional 90 days to prepare its case, which shall be granted or denied by the justice assigned to the case.
...
g. If a case is not prepared after 730 days, or after one to three extensions, whichever is longer, a mistrial shall be declared and the charge or charges shall be rendered null and void.

Why 730 days? I realize that's exactly two years, but why so long?

[Glüc da Dhi]

I like it.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jul 22, 2009 0:33:27 GMT -6 @danielo said:

Why 730 days? I realize that's exactly two years, but why so long?

It looks like the 730 days only applies to murder, rape, battery, etc charges, which are cases that are very unlikley to ever be tried in a Talossan Cort any time soon. Based on this fact I find it hard to adopt... seeing as murder will be tried under US law and not Talossan Law.

If you drop the heinous crimes stuff and perhaps make way for an extension to the regular rules then I will be happy to co-sponsor this bill. Something like this:

c. The Crown shall have up to 90 days from the time of notification of the accused in which to prepare its case. If a case is not prepared by the Crown within the allotted time, a mistrial shall be declared and the charge or charges against the accused shall be rendered null and void.
d. If a case is not prepared within the 90 days limit then the prosecution may request up to an additional 30 days to prepare its case, which shall be granted or denied by the justice assigned to the case.
e. The decision shall be based on the legitimacy of reasons given by the Crown, in the interests of justice, equality, and neutrality.
f. If a case is declared null and void then final jeopardy shall apply unless the prosecution is able to provide new evidence against the accused with which to build a case. If a new case is tried then the old evidence may not be used or taken into consideration. A new case must meet the same statute of limitations as described previously.


Just spitting my thoughts, if it were to read anything like this, I would be happy to co-sponsor.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

In past cases, the Cort has often ordered the prosecution to begin presenting its case in much less than 90 days after acceptance of the case by the Cort. You may wish to consider adding language like "unless a shorter time is specified by court rule or order," unless the intention of the Ziu is to ensure that the government can use the full 90 days if it wants to.

[Deleted]

I support this. I don't think we should drop the heinous crimes portion. Our criminal code allows for imprisonment. I think we all see that this is unlikely to occur.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

If the heinous crimes portion is kept, it would be useful to more clearly define what a heinous crime is, or at least who makes the determination. As it is, there is a huge incentive for the government to assume that more and more crimes are heinous, because that expands the prosecution timeline by more than a factor of eight.

[Ieremiac'h Ventrutx]

Just a note that this bill would have no affect on the Trial(s) of Weckstrom since his case has yet to be accepted by the court. From my initial reading that is what this seemed to be geared to,but perhaps it is my own bias based on knowledge of the situation.

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2009 9:28:02 GMT -6 Ieremiac'h Ventrutx said:

Just a note that this bill would have no affect on the Trial(s) of Weckstrom since his case has yet to be accepted by the court. From my initial reading that is what this seemed to be geared to,but perhaps it is my own bias based on knowledge of the situation.

I had wondered if this might be related.

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2009 8:34:03 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

You may wish to consider adding language like "unless a shorter time is specified by court rule or order," ...

I'm in favor of keeping the heinous crimes portion, and what Sir C. says above.

[Flip Molinar]

Dec 15, 1973 12:15:24 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

unless the intention of the Ziu is to ensure that the government can use the full 90 days if it wants to.

Thats what I was thinking.

[Flip Molinar]

[quote author=danielo[/quote]
Why 730 days? I realize that's exactly two years, but why so long?[/quote]

That's, as MC Grischun points out, only for heinous crimes.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Flip, I support this bill. It appears to inject some clarity into the Covenant regarding habeas corpus.

[Flip Molinar]

Amended.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jul 21, 2009 22:30:43 GMT -6 Flip Molinar said:

The Habeas Corpus Enforcement Act

WHEREAS The "right to a speedy trial" is guaranteed to all Talossan citizens under the Ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms; and

WHEREAS This right is not further clarified, nor in any way defined; and

WHEREAS the lack of explanation and definition of such an important right may cause that right to be subsequently denied the accused, with or without the intent of said right being denied; and

WHEREAS such an important right must be clear and concise in order to ensure the proper enforcement thereof; now

THEREFORE

In the interest of providing the accused with the rights granted to him by the ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, the following rights shall be considered to be inalienable and shall be afforded to all citizens in civilian trials:

a. The accused must be informed of the charges against him by the Crown within seven days of said charges being accepted by any national or provincial cort.
b. Such notification must be submitted to the accused in writing, by either an electronic medium such as email, or by a handwritten letter. A copy of every such notice shall be archived in the Royal Archives by the Royal Archivist immediately after he receives a copy of said notice. If the notice is given in the form of a hand-written letter, the Royal Archivist shall make a copy of the letter in an electronic format, such that it may be added to the Royal Archives.
c. The Crown shall have up to 90 days from the time of notification of the accused in which to prepare its case. If a case is not prepared by the Crown within the allotted time, a mistrial shall be declared and the charge or charges against the accused shall be rendered null and void.
d. If a case is not prepared within the 90 days limit then the prosecution may request up to an additional 30 days to prepare its case, which shall be granted or denied by the justice assigned to the case. This section takes precedence over section [c]
e. The decision shall be based on the legitimacy of reasons given by the Crown, in the interests of justice, equality, and neutrality.
f. If a case is declared null and void then final jeopardy shall apply unless the prosecution is able to provide new evidence against the accused with which to build a case. If a new case is tried then the old evidence may not be used or taken into consideration. A new case must meet the same statute of limitations as described previously.


Uréu q'estadra sa:

Flip Molinar (MC-FGP)

In this format I would be happy to vote for this and add my name as a co-sponsor.