Office of the Commissioner of Justice

[unmerged(10397)]

Office of the Attorney General

(OOC: Legal Counsel's thread was too inacurate on the Office, so I'm starting a new one, besides, I need to be able to edit the first post)

The Commissioner of Justice has the responsibility of reviewing all petitions put forth to the High Court of EUtopia to determine if they are valid for the High Court's time, or if they would be better solved through Mediation/Arbitration in the lesser courts. Those cases deemed worthy will be investigated by the CJ, who will prepare the case, summarize opinions, and give recomendations to the Court.

Authority to interpret the Constitution is reserved for the High Court and the CJ does not work with the Home Ministry Courts unless his presence is requested for arbitration or to provide counsel. The CJ is forbidden from using his position to speed up a trial in the Home Ministry Courts.

Tenure of office:
Nominated by HC and approved by majority vote in Parliament. Remains CJ until majority in Parliament vote to remove him, HC dismisses him, or he resigns office.

High Court Ruling Hall

Legal Resources
Former Attorney General's Office
Eutopian Bar Association
Eutopian Constitution
Law Gazette and National Assembly Archives
National Archives

 

[phelbas]

Can anyone suggest an action to brought for judicial review or does it have to be someone directly related to the action.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Anyone can ask as far as I know, but wether the request will be accepted I don't know.

 

[Erc]

I have very little legal experience, but I believe you have to be somehow affected by the wrongdoing in order to press claims...

[OOC: the term "judicial review" has some nasty connotations as well (Peter Zenger and so forth), so I'd shy away from using that term unless you are indeed referring to that process]

 

[phelbas]

judical review is simply what it says, the reviewing of actions of public bodies by the judicary to decide if they are legal/constitutional. hardly nasty conatations.

Well the issue i have that i would like the courts to rule on is the court martial procedurs of the Military,ie they way they don't permit defence teams etc. i acceot the enforcement of military law will be differnt to civil law but it must still comply with the basic and fundamental rights inherent to a democratic state.

firstly and at the very least i would like the court to force the military to provide a statement of exactly how the tribunal will work, who wil put for prosectution evidence, rights of the defendant etc.

[there are 2 tribunals to happen soon Smith and Harton[i think]]

As a miltary officer and MNA i think this needs to adressed fro the rights of serving members of our armed forces to be protected and in the public intrest

 

[Erc]

[OOC: In re judicial review, I was thinking of something completely different... o oops]

 

[HJ Tulp]

Commander Stewart, in the whole history of the Armed Forces you are the only one complaining about this. What's worse...you are complaining with the civis. The AG isn't in controll of the Military and can't force it.

 

[phelbas]

i'm also in the assembly and beleive in civillian control of the armed forces. The military cannot be above the law, so would not be immune from the authorrity of the courts. I have no problem with a seperate branch of military law, and accept that it will not guarentee the same rights as the civil law, but our system seems flawed in the extreme and unacceptable to a democratic nation.

As i said the system at least needs to be clearer. i have felt i have been getting little help through official miliatry channels so have decided to turn to the courts for help in this area

 

[phelbas]

I assume this delay in getting a response means the Attorney General doesn't see this as worth the consideration of the courts? If so is there a way of direct appeal to the courts or is that only avaiable to the people being tried?

I suppose there is no rush considering one of the people up for trial is dead and the other has escaped

[occ thought this might give the courts something to do, and it fits with RL developments, the US Supreme courts has decieded to look at matters relating to the war on terror and the detensions at camp X-Ray.]

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I've given this some thought, but I don't think the Court can provide the aid your looking for. Personnally, I think you'd be better off asking President Langley to set up a comission to investigate things. I'd be happy to run this by the President myself if you'd like, or merely offer my support. He will probably not object, but if he does you can always go to the Parliament.

 

[HJ Tulp]

A disgrace!

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Could you clarify that a bit Admiral?

 

[HJ Tulp]

Civilian Juridical System should stay out the Military Juridical System. The Commander is in the NA, why doesn't he tries to do something there? I would still oppose it offcourse but still.........civilian courts should stay out of the Military ones.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Uhh...the civilian court IS staying out of the military court. I have just advised the commander to do exactly what you suggested.

 

[phelbas]

The military are subordinate to the civlian authourites therefore the civillian courts can reveiw military actions. You wouldn't be suugesting that the military is above the rule of law admiral, because that would be unacceptable to a democratic system. Though as i said it hardly matters to much with one of the defendants dead and the other on the run.

 

[HJ Tulp]

It's actually very simple Commander, the Military and the Civil Law are totally sepperate. The Military Law has nothing to say about Civil Law and the Civil Law has nothing to say about the Military Law. Military Law isn't above the Civilian Courts but at the same level. A institution that is above Military law is the NA which can change Military Law offcourse. Which is why Military reps in Commisions on the Law almost always ask it to stay out of the Military Law like I did with the Death Penalty Bill.

 

[The_Hawk]

But, Admiral, the High Court exists to review the constitutionality of all government action, including that of the military. By your suggestion, the National Assembly could pass a patently unconstitutional military law act, and since the matter would then be "military", the High Court, as a civilian institution, could do nothing to negate the unconstitutionality of the act. Since active military officers can be MNAs, it's conceivable that a military-dominated National Assembly could railroad all sorts of legislation which applies to military courts, and there would be no way for the civilian government to do anything about it. Such a situation is obviously unacceptable if civilian oversight of the military is to mean anything.

 

[HJ Tulp]

The High court is constitutional right?

 

[The_Hawk]

I'm not certain whether you mean "is the High Court established in the Constitution", "does the High Court exist to review the constitutionality of governmental action", or "is the High Court itself legitimate under the Constitution".

The answers to the first two are yes. The answer to the last is presumably yes, given that it's established in the Constitution.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Then it isn't a problem. The Military law isn't there for the constitutionally matters. Only for trieing Military personell or people who commited 'military' offenses. Not for anything constitutionally.The High Court does stand above Military Law.