Request for Judicial Review: Asairia v. Cosmosplosion

The Court today reviews a sentence handed down by the Court in a case that was litigated under our region's prior legal system, one that has since changed with the adoption of a new Constitution and a Legal Code. Petitioner Cosmosplosion was the one affected by that sentence, which included the order that he "be indefinitely prohibited from holding any regional office." Cosmosplosion requested this review seeking to have this ban on holding office overturned, citing good behavior and appealing to a sense of justice and fairness. Given that the case in question comes from a different legal regime than the one in which the Court currently operates, it is first necessary to establish the basis on which this Court can examine this or any other case that predates the new Constitution and Legal Code.

This Court has ruled in the past that "Where precedent is concerned, a revision or repeal of a law should not necessarily pardon those punished under it as a matter of course" (00032017 Cosmosplosion v. The Versutian Federation). The spent portion of this Constitution established that all existing laws contradicting the new Constitution would be repealed, but all existing treaties and agreements would remain in force (Constitution, Article 10, Section 3). Punishments of citizens who have done wrong did not magically cease just because a new Constitution was ratified, just as old laws did not magically cease to exist without an explicit provision declaring them repealed. Just as our commitments continued beyond the expiration of our old Constitution, so too must it follow that our prior Court rulings continue to bind us even with a new legal system.

Particular weight in this case was given to the fact that the sentence in question is "indefinite" in nature. An indefinite sentence would logically continue beyond the life of an old Constitution just as a fixed sentence would. During the submission of briefs the question of the Court's ability to issue such a sentence was broached. It is undoubtedly true that the Court shall "Execute any power delegated to the Court by law" (Constitution, Article 7, Section 2) and that the law states "Nations convicted of Conspiracy shall receive punishment reduced from the punishment for the crime they conspired to commit...Nations convicted of Griefing shall have their posting privileges revoked or restricted, or be banned from the region or offsite properties, as appropriate, length to be determined by the Court" (Legal Code, Chapter 7, Clauses 2, 5). However, these provisions did not exist at the time the sentence in question was delivered. In fact, the Constitution in force at the time simply stated that "The Minister of Justice shall pass sentence in these cases" (Previous Constitution, Article 4.1.2). Therefore, no limit was given to the Court's ability to sentence defendants when found guilty under the prior legal system. Given that prior Court rulings are binding on the Court in the current legal system, it necessarily follows that the indefinite sentence issued by the Court in this case is valid. The Court would further note that in the case in question, Cosmosplosion was found guilty of "harassment, griefing, and conspiracy to commit electoral fraud" (00082017 Asairia v. Cosmosplosion). As previously referenced, two of these are crimes under the current Legal Code, and the punishment for them is consistent with the sentence handed out by this Court. 

With the legal basis for considering this question firmly established, there only remains the question of the remedy sought. Unfortunately, it is here where the petitioner runs into a fatal problem. There is no legal basis for overturning the indefinite office ban. No such claim is made by the petitioner in his application for review, and even if there was, this review would not be the venue for such an order, given that "Appellate procedure shall be determined by law" (Constitution, Article 7, Section 3) and the law says clearly that "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). What is needed to have this ban reconsidered, let alone overturned, is an appeal of the original case, and such an appeal must be consistent with the law as written by Parliament.

Accordingly, the indefinite ban on holding office stands.

This concludes the Court's business in this case.