SD v MagicGhost 2021 Crim 2
SD v MagicGhost 2021 Crim 2
| Date of judgment | 19th January 2021 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Chief Justice SeaOtter |
| Charges | 1 charge of Abuse of Power (Article 35 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Abuse of Power |
| Sentence | 50 day ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | The court may suspend a sentence, 19 |
JUDGMENT by Chief Justice SeaOtter
Introduction
[1]. The defendant is charged with 1 count of Abuse of Power, for allegedly ordering the Attorney General to drop charges on a criminal case they had a conflict of interest in.
[2]. The prosecution stated that the defendant, then Deputy Prime Minister, ordered him to drop charges against Mooklyn, who he was representing in a court case. It is argued that it was not a request, but an order given under the defendants authority as Deputy Prime Minister.
[3]. The defense argued that 1\) the DPM has no authority to order the AG, 2\) that the defendant was looking out for the public’s interest in ordering the charge dropped, and 3\) the defendants words were not an order. The court shall address each of these in turn.
Was it an order?
[3]. The prosecution presented several messages in which the defendant uses the word “ordered” to describe his interaction with the AG. The court finds that this shows that the defendant intended to order the Attorney General to take an action.
Authority of the DPM
[4]. The next question is if the Deputy Prime Minister has the authority to order the Attorney General. Several laws govern the Cabinet. Primarily the Constitution, which guarantees that executive power be wielded by the Cabinet of Ministers. [5]. The next layer down is the Ministries of State Act (MOSA), which establishes the ministries. MOSA establishes that ministers be appointed by the Prime Minister to have authority over a specific ministry as created by law. This would include ministries such as Justice or Archives, but what for the Deputy Prime Minister, which does not explicitly lead a portion of the executive.
[6]. MOSA does make an important clarification, however. Article 1, sections 5 and 6 state that “§5. Executive officials may delegate their powers and duties to their subordinates; along with the restrictions to which they are bound.” and “§6. Executive officials may issue executive orders and directives which their subordinates shall be obliged to follow.” Note that MOSA makes a distinction in this that Executive Officials are separate from Ministers. Executive officials shall be known as any person serving in the executive branch of government. The Deputy Prime Minister is one such person.
[7]. Now, The DPM is explicitly granted some authority by legislation, mainly by the Succession Act, which states that the DPM shall succeed the Prime Minister if they become unable to execute the duties of their office. Otherwise, however, they are largely unmentioned.
[8]. This court believes, as the DPM is an executive official, power may be granted to them by their superior, in this case the Prime Minister, or through executive order by a President (prior to the Parliamendment).
[9]. The best log of “executive orders” per se is the record of executive orders that were published as such. These are contained in the National Archives.
[10]. In Executive Order 101, signed by President Sunbear on July 29th, 2020, it is explicitly stated that levels of orders shall be “1 for president, 2 for vp, 3 for secretary, 4 for director, and 5 for regular employees.” The court takes this to mean that by presidential order, the Vice President (now Deputy PM) has authority over the Cabinet of Ministers, Directors and their subordinates.
[11]. With this, the court can reasonably conclude that the Deputy Prime Minister has the authority to issue orders to Level 4 employees (of which the AG is one). It should also be noted that the DPM has issued executive orders in the past to ministries they were not direct leaders of.
Was the defendant acting for the public good?
[12]. The next question the court must deal with is whether the actions of the defendant were in the public good.
[13]. In the evidence presented, there is a clear conflict of interest present between the defendant’s order to drop a charge and his role as a defense attorney in that case. It can not be ignored that in this case, while it is difficult to know exact motive, the ordering of a subordinate to drop a charge on a case they are involved in is not in the public good.
[14]. While I do see the defense’s point about how the defendant “could” have been working in the public interest, there are better ways for the defendant to ensure proper justice is carried out. He very well could have raised the matter to the PM, who did not have a conflict of interest in that case. However, he did not, and thusly committed abuse of power by attempting to order the Attorney General to drop a charge he had a substantial interest in seeing dropped.
[15]. In future cases, executive officials should take all means necessary to ensure they do not act on their power illegally to fulfill their personal goals. The defendant had plenty of opportunities to raise the matter with someone else, but did not do so.
Verdict
[16]. The court finds the defendant guilty of Abuse of Power under Article 35 of the S.D.C.
[17]. The court sentences the defendant to a 50 day ban, which shall take effect on the 31st of January at 15:00 Eastern Standard Time. This sentence may be extended further due to delay of election results, but shall take effect no later than when the results are posted to r/SimDemocracy. In addition, the defendant shall be forbidden from the office of Deputy Prime Minister for three months following the ban’s expiration.
17.1 If the defendant runs in and wins the next election for Members of Parliament, they shall be held in contempt of court and sentenced to a 3 day mute for as long as they continue to hold the office and disrupt judicial proceedings by way of loophole.
Notes
[18]. The court had issues to take into consideration with the sentencing of this defendant. Article 8 of the S.D.C. does not allow the court to issue the ban immediately, as that would have the effect of terminating the Prime Minister from their position, something explicitly barred. Forcing them to leave and terminating them through the Succession Act the court also believes is prohibited by this clause. In addition, the court believes that the Constitution intends to leave Parliament the sole power to remove elected officials.
[19]. However, the court has the ability to suspend a sentence indefinitely, This power is granted by S.D.C. 6, s7 which states “If no time after which the punishment comes into effect has been specified in the verdict or the plea deal; the punishment is to apply after 24 hours.” The court takes this to mean that it can specify a time after which the punishment will take effect.
[20]. However, the court is permitted to bar the defendant from holding a ministerial or other cabinet level position under which they committed a crime.
