Edward Napier | Request for Appeal | 1788

[Hanrahan 2983]

REQUEST FOR APPEAL

 

EDWARD NAPIER

REQUESTING AN APPEAL ON THE VERDICT RULED BY THE MOST ESTEEMED JUSTICE FRANZISKA VIMMARK IN THE TRIAL OF THE CROWN v. NAPIER.

 

ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS;

The trial procedure and conduct of the Ministry of Justice violated Orenian law and thus constitutes a mistrial as prescribed by Article II Section 5.i of the Legal Procedure Act 1772.

 

IN CONSIDERATION OF;

No Subpoena was published:

Section 7 of Article I provides that a matter must be prefaced with a formal Subpoena to be defined as a legal proceeding;

Section 17 of Article I and Section 2.a of Article II provide that a Subpoena must be published to formally summon an individual to stand trial on criminal charges;

Section 1.a of Article III makes explicit reference to the publication of a Subpoena and provides that a Justice must conduct a preliminary hearing to ascertain the merits of a Subpoena;

Section 4 of Article III provides that a Defendant shall be obliged to submit a Responding Affidavit in response to a Subpoena outlining their defence to the charges described therein. On this occasion there exists no Subpoena to submit a Responding Affidavit in response to.

There must be, at the absolute minimum, one Saint’s Day between charging and trial: 

Section 4 of Article III provides for the principle of Disclosure, requiring both the Crown, or Plaintiff, and Defendant to exchange Books of Evidence at least one Saint’s Day prior to trial. In the current case this minimum waiting period was not observed.

The Defendant’s Request for Injunctive Relief:

The Defendant has submitted a ‘Request for Injunctive Relief’ prior to sentencing to the Supreme Court outlining the reasons to dismiss the trial as a mistrial, to which the Supreme Court responded with unanimous agreement and requested the formal submission of an Appeal.

 

IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH;

The Supreme Court, having unanimously agreed with the Defendant in his submissions that the trial constitutes a mistrial, is thus called upon to render the verdict null and oblige the Ministry of Justice and the Circuit Court to adhere to the proper legal avenues as prescribed by the Legal Procedure Act 1772 if they wish to pursue criminal conviction.

 

AND THEREFORE HOPES TO RESTORE JUSTICE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PROCEDURE.

 

YOURS HUMBLY,

EDWARD NAPIER AS REPRESENTED BY JENS OTTO LAURITSEN

[CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS]

[[DISCORD]]

[MCVDK 2854]

The Ministry of Justice wishes not to rebuttal against the appeal of Mr. Napier and encourages the Supreme Court to take a just decision.