Request for Judicial Review: Asairia v Cosmo

For the second time, the Court considers the matter of the case that refuses to go away, Asairia v. Cosmosplosion. This time, petitioner Cosmosplosion (hereafter referred to as Cosmo) asks this Court to issue an advisory opinion not simply as to whether or not he may appeal his sentence by virtue of the fact that the laws on which his conviction were based have changed retrospectively, but also whether there even exists a course, if not this one, that he may utilize to appeal his case. The question is murky not only due to the nature of his punishment, but of the very specific triggers for appealing Court rulings. This Court will undertake to explore this issue further, not because it is general practice to judge whether a petitioner’s legal strategy is sound, but because firstly, understanding an archaic holdover from a previous legal system will guide future appeals and ensure that everyone understands the process; and secondly, indefinite sentences pose a unique challenge that must be considered so that the nations of this region can effectively exercise their rights.

This Court ruled in the previous review of this case that the only way for the indefinite office ban issued by this court to be overturned is a successful appeal of that case. When it comes to appeals in this region, the bar is high. As cited in that review, "Appeals to Court verdicts or the conclusions of reviews of government policies or laws may be made in the event substantial new evidence becomes available that was not previously considered by the Court, a law upon which the decision was based changes retrospectively, a procedural error significantly affecting the outcome of the case was made, or it can be determined that the official tasked with hearing the case had a conflict of interest" (Legal Code, Chapter 3, Clause 28). For Cosmo to launch a successful appeal, one of these conditions must be met. It is the petitioner’s belief that an appeal is appropriate based on the second condition, that a law was changed retrospectively. The Court need not render a judgment as to whether or not this condition has been met because the very concept of retrospective laws is inconsistent with this region’s Constitution and the condition does not and cannot exist. Consequently, an appeal cannot ever be made on these grounds.

Retrospective laws, in common legal parlance, are laws which take effect at a time before the passage of said laws, as if they had always been in effect even before the actual date they were passed. These are perhaps better known by another term, ex post facto laws. Our Constitution very clearly bans such laws (Constitution Article 1, Section 4). The term “retrospectively” is used when describing a condition for appealing a case in this Court, and the language for that portion of the Legal Code was derived from this Court’s original appellate procedure, which was not enshrined in law but was effectively that old legal system’s version of Court procedure. There was also no prohibition on ex post facto laws, making that provision at least somewhat valid, setting aside one’s thoughts on the inherent justice or lack thereof of such laws. This Court has previously reversed its ruling on the basis of such a law (ErasmoGnome v. The Black Hat Guy, 00022013), but in practice it has been far more common for Parliament to pass laws that do not change matters before the passage of the law, just as they did with the new legal system. When it comes to the petitioner, the closest analogue is the constitutional amendment to eliminate the provision of the Constitution allowing Parliament to revoke membership in Parliament through a vote. Cosmo successfully petitioned the reversal of his revocation of citizenship, but it is important to note in that case that this Court did so on the basis that it was not the reversal of a Court decision, but an act of the Court to enforce the law that existed at the time (Cosmosplosion v. The Versutian Federation).

The Legal Code’s provision for an appeal, therefore, includes a redundant condition, one that only serves to confuse and lead nowhere, and relies on an unconstitutional condition to be utilized. It is not unconstitutional for the Legal Code to state that an appeal may be granted if an unconstitutional law is passed, as such a provision is wholly in the spirit of the Constitution, but it is rather silly for the law to include such a provision and in practice it might as well not exist for all the good it is doing anyone. Retrospective laws are unconstitutional. The new Constitution and accompanying Legal Code started a clean slate. Cosmo’s inquiry relied in large part on something that is no longer possible, and therefore cannot apply to his situation. Were Cosmo to attempt to appeal his conviction on these grounds, he would inevitably fail to change the outcome, as the law would either be found not to be retrospective, or it would be struck down as unconstitutional for being retrospective.

We are left then with Cosmo’s other inquiry. How would he or any other potential petitioner have a sentence reviewed if the existing appeals process cannot accommodate them? Typically, one needn’t go beyond the Legal Code’s language regarding appeals, and the Legal Code is very clear on what conditions must exist for an appeal to be requested. Parliament has seen fit to require very specific criteria for appeals that are concerned entirely with the process of the case. None of those conditions involve the passage of time being a factor on whether a sentence is valid, nor are they concerned with the actual length of punishment. Cosmo may appeal the verdict, but that appeal will only be successful if it relates to an incomplete or improperly held case, whereas the entirety of his remarks related to this case have been about reframing it in light of existing law. Reviewing a sentence after it has been carried out is not contemplated by the Legal Code at all. What Cosmo is seeking with this inquiry, and with exploring an appeal of his sentence, is clearly retroactive ameliorative relief. There is no provision for this in our law, but it would be a natural part of an appeal that contemplates whether old convictions can be re-examined in light of the changes the region has made since the time of the conviction. It is also the view of this Court that such an examination would be more consistent with justice and fairness for the nations of this region, than the alternative.

There have been only two cases where the punishment handed down by this Court was indefinite in nature, and the question of re-evaluating them has until now never been considered by the Court. In the previous review of this case, the Court held that indefinite punishments from the prior legal system are valid, and indefinite punishments are valid in the current legal system as well. That review was strictly concerned with indefinite punishment in the abstract. Whether or not an indefinite sentence is appropriate depends on the case, and would normally be argued in the sentencing stage of a trial. Appeals based on improper sentences, likely as a result of an objection not being raised during the sentencing process, would clearly fall under one of the conditions for an appeal that currently exist in law. But Cosmo is not in that situation, because when he was convicted there was no sentencing stage, and no limits on the sentences that could be given out by the Court. An indefinite sentence given out in modern cases would be subject to this sentencing stage, where terms for carrying out the sentence and following up on it could be given, and considering the emphasis on scale and proportionality that is prevalent in the criminal and penal code portions of the Legal Code, it is a major stretch of the imagination to claim that an indefinite sentence could be imposed without reckoning with some future point where that sentence may need to be re-examined. If a sentence were intended to be permanent, that is precisely the term one would expect to be used, and that is the sentence the Court should give. To do otherwise leaves the door open to an end to the sentence, but on an uncertain timetable subject to the whim of whoever happens to run the Court at the time, and subject to the individual being sentenced. This way leads to unequal and variable justice, and throws the convicted into limbo, where they have no hope of rescue or recourse, and must resign themselves to their fate without a legal path to follow. And that is Cosmo’s fate at this point in time.

Given the facts and the reality of the situation, the Court’s hands are tied. Many of us come from a tradition where equal rights and equal protection are held sacrosanct, but this region’s Constitution does not explicitly enshrine these principles, nor does its Legal Code forbid a discrepancy in sentences carried out today versus old sentences still being carried out. It is this Court’s opinion that taking another look at any sentence, especially and most crucially indefinite ones, requires an appeal on grounds that are not explicitly defined or allowed by the Legal Code. As a result of this review, the Court will endeavor to more clearly outline the process for requesting an appeal in its Court Procedures. Parliament should endeavor to incorporate this particular type of appeal into the Legal Code, and correct this state of affairs.

This concludes the Court’s business in this case.