In re Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act 2020 SDSC 4
In re Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act 2020 SDSC 4
| Date of judgment | 27th January 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy Justice Danyo |
| Held | The Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act was unconstitutional because the procedure it created caused an infinite loop, unconstitutionally depriving the right to a fair hearing |
| Ruling | 2-0 |
| Applicable precedent | The Supreme Court can act on its own initiative to summarily void unconstitutional Acts without a formal judicial review under the Supreme Court Procedures Act, 4 |
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy
(with Justice Danyo agreeing)
[1]. In Article 4, section 5.1 of the Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act, the act states that if a mistrial were to commence, “the procedure would begin again at Section 4 outlined in Article 4.” This points back to Article 4, section 4 of the act, which is as follows:
§4. Following the trial, the presiding judge shall have 24 hours in which to review the evidence and transcripts of the trial before delivering a verdict.
If a mistrial needs to be declared, the judges/justices are instead thrown in a never ending loop, unable to redo the trial off grounds of mistrial.
1.1 Article 26, section 1 of the Constitution details how everyone is entitled to the right to a fair hearing. When a mistrial is declared, it means that an event has happened during the trial that has prevented a fair hearing from happening and therefore the trial needs to be redone. However, if the judge is unable to declare a mistrial, the trial is forced to remain an unfair trial, resulting in an infringement of Article 26, section 1 of the constitution.
1.2 Article 9, section 1 of the Constitution details how it is the judiciary’s duty to “advocate conflicts between individual citizens, citizens and the government or branches of the government.” If a mistrial is declared, but a retrial cannot commence, the judiciary is unable to perform their duty to adjudicate the conflict, resulting in an infringement of Article 9, section 1 of the Constitution.
[2]. In Article 6, section 3 of the Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures act details how to proceed if a trial in absentia is declared. If a trial in absentia is declared, and the defence does not appoint legal representation in the allotted time frame, “any Registry Secretary shall appoint a certified attorney with no conflict of interest in the case for them.” This section presents some problems.
2.1 Article 26, section 3 of the Constitution details how everyone has the right to a certified attorney. In order for someone to be assigned an attorney when a trial in absentia is declared, they need to be assigned one through a “Registry Secretary.” However, Registry Secretaries cannot be assigned, as that is the only mention of Registry Secretary, therefore, Registry Secretary cannot exist, meaning an attorney cannot be assigned, infringing Article 26, section 3 of the Constitution.
2.2 Article 26, section 3 of the Constitution also describes how everyone “has the right to defend themselves in person.” However, if a defendant who desires to represent themselves is forcibly given an attorney, even if the defendant is absent, their rights to defend themselves would be infringed and Article 26, section 3 of the Constitution.
[3]. Although the state can infringe on the right to a fair hearing, the right to an attorney, and the right to self-defence as detailed in Article 33 of the constitution, the supreme court cannot find how this could protect the rights of others or how it would be done in public interest.
[4]. Article 1, section 5 of the Supreme Court Procedures Act allows the supreme court to act on our own accord. Therefore, for all of the reasons given above, the Supreme Court of SimDemocracy, majority ruling, declares the Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act to be unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.
