Post by Asairia on Apr 1, 2018 17:40:12 GMT
Monday, 8 April 2013
in the case of:
The Republica 10000 of Nuew [Claimant]
vs.
The Democratic States of Munrova [Defendant]
Application:
Claimant nation(s): Nuew
Defendant(s): Munrova
Date(s) of alleged infractions: Monday, April 8, 2013
Summary of facts and how this broke the law/rules or violated the Constitution: Munrova has committed libel against Nuew. (I'm assuming this will be illegal)
Remedy/Remedies sought: The court could test their judicial system.
I, The Republica 10000 of Nuew, hereby certify the above to be correct to the best of my knowledge.
The Minister of Justice has judged your application meritorious. Trial follows below.
The Minister of Justice is prepared to accept the existence of an offence of slander should that slander substantially prejudice the interests of the claimant nation.
Judgement
JENLOM, MoJ
1 This case revolves around a tortious defamation action taken by the Claimant, The Republica 10000 of Nuew, against the Defendant, The Democratic States of Munrova.
2 The Claimant alleges that the Defendant, who were both at all material times Nations within the region of the Versutian Federation, libeled them by suggesting that their nation "smells of dog buns".
3 During the course of the trial, the Claimant alleged first that these statements had been made in private, but then introduced new evidence suggesting that the statements had been made in a public place, namely of the motto of the Defendant.
4 Upon investigation, it was determined that the nation's motto was no longer anything of the alleged sort (indeed, the Defendant claimed with some authority that the evidence introduced was at best questionable).
5 When asked about the nature of the libel in question, the Claimant suggested that the effect of the statement had been so profound as to cause the Horde of Ostroeuropa, who is also a member Nation of the Versutian Federation, to (to some extent) break off relations with their nation.
6 When asked to provide an affidavit from the Horde of Ostroeuropa, this affidavit was not forthcoming. Additionally, a check by the Court into relations between the Claimant and this nation seemed to provide no evidence in favour of this allegation.
7 So, the two questions that must be resolved are; whether the statements were in fact made in a public place; and whether the publishing of these statements caused substantive harm to the Claimant.
8 Firstly, the Court saw no reliable evidence to suggest that the statements had been made. Screenshots were laid before the Court purporting to show the statements on a publicly-accessible page, although these were refuted by the Defendant who claimed they had been fabricated.
9 Secondly, assuming (for the sake of argument) that the statements had been made, the Court asked to see evidence that the interests of the Claimant had been substantially negatively affected by the statement. The Claimant produced evidence which showed that the statement was not true (although arguably this is of little relevance, as the Defendant was likely in a position of absolute privilege in their position of critique). The Claimant produced further screenshot evidence of relations being broken down through the ejection of the Claimant from a WMD-umbrella pact.
10 Based on the previous unreliability of the Claimant's evidence, both the Defendant and this Court requested a statement or the presence of the Nation which broke off relations with the Claimant. Neither the statement nor the counsel were forthcoming, leading the Court to believe that either the breaking-off of relations had not happened, or had not been caused by this particular event.
11 Given the questionable nature of the evidence submitted, that the statement made was at best transient in its nature, and the effect of the statement almost non-existant, the Court cannot see a libel here.
Held: in favour of the Defendant, no libel occured.
Judgement delivered:
Tuesday 9, April, 2013