Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss Appeal, 1806

[Hanrahan 2983]

   

RULING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS:

JUDICIAL APPEAL   

 

Opinions of the Court delivered by Justice Komnenos

 

Joined by:

Justice Ruthern

Justice Napier

 

The opinions and rulings of the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Komnenos, are as follows; 

 

Mr. Leonard Halcourt, henceforth referred to as Mr. Halcourt, filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to the Crown filing for the granting of an Appeal in the case of  The Crown v O'Rourke … The Supreme Court accepts this motion on the basis of the following; 

 

“In accordance with the aforementioned argument, it is the opinion of the Defendant that the representatives of the Ministry of Justice Mister R.A. Fitzpeter, who talked about the Plea Agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Crown, Mister Godwin de Aurdan, who signed the Plea Agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Crown, and Mister Olivier Halcourt, who attempted to convince the Defendant to sign the Plea Agreement on behalf of the Crown and who filed this Appeal on behalf of the Crown as indicated in the Sworn Affidavit that was sent to the Court have not respected and are currently preventing the fulfillment of the obligations that the Ministry of Justice assumed on behalf of the Crown in the aforementioned Plea Agreement. 

 

As contained in the Plea Agreement, an obligation assumed by the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Crown is to not prosecute the Defendant for the crimes committed.”

 

Furthermore... 

 

“In accordance with our arguments in the Part III of this Motion, it is the opinion of the Defendant that the consensual, obligational and binding nature of a Plea Agreement is very similar to the nature of a Contract, which implies that an analogy between Plea Agreements or Settlement Agreements and Contracts can be done and, therefore, it is the opinion of the Defendant that statutory law on contracts, contained within CH 305 of the ORC, does analogously apply to the Plea Agreement of this case.

 

Therefore, the Defendant does hereby invoke the following article of law: 

 

“Contracts validly entered may be rescinded by agreement of both parties or the decision of the emperor and his magistrates of law.” [ORC 305.051].”

 

The Court finds this factual and compelling, as the Plea Deal is a valid and sealing document between two autonomous parties that may not be subject to alteration or negation except in the case of article 305.051. As neither action - Agreement by both parties, the Crown Prosecution and Mr. Halcourt representing Mr. O’Rourke, OR direct intercedance by the Imperial Person has been made, grounds for appeal are thus out of order. 

 

However ... 

 

“In their Appeal, the Prosecution affirms that the Appeal is submitted “on the basis of new evidence forwarded to the Prosecution” [Judicial Appeal: The Crown v. O’Rourke-Elendil], but the Defendant wishes to remind to the Court that new evidence does not necessarily mean new facts, and that the Prosecution has not stated in the Appeal that they are submitting the Appeal on the basis of news facts and that the Prosecution has not stated in the Appeal that this new evidence leads to new facts.”

 

In accordance with section 305.041, On Interpretation, it is written that “All parties must abide by the literal meaning of clauses of contracts if they are clear and leave no doubt to the intention of the contract.” It is the opinion of the Courts that the Literal interpretation of Evidence is the following;

“A Noun or Verb used to describe, indicate, or imply the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

The use of the word Evidence by the Prosecution in their documentation was clear and legal, and acceptable to be submitted to the Courts.

 

On the subject of New Evidence... 

 

“It is the opinion of the Defendant that the following statement made by the Prosecution in their Appeal might not be accurate:

 

“The [plea] agreement was enacted prematurely, before the Ministry had the ability to gather all relevant evidence pertaining to the case.” [Judicial Appeal: The Crown v. O’Rourke-Elendil] 

 

The Defendant has recently signed a Sworn Affidavit that has been sent to the Court from which could be determined that the Ministry of Justice did in fact have enough time to gather all the relevant evidences pertaining to the case and that the offering of the Plea Agreement to the Defendant was a matter very meditated by the Prosecution.”

The Court finds this compelling and factual. Mistakes and Errors made by the Ministry of Justice are not the legal onus of the defendant, and are not legal grounds for breaking a contract.

In consideration of the above the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Komnenos, sees fit to conclude;

 

The Court finds that any Plea Deal or Settlement Agreement that has not been ruled over, or confirmed by an official of the law, be it a Judge, a Magistrate or the Courts, both Circuit and Supreme are to be ruled as invalid and non-binding. However, in this case, and for future cases, the age of the case shall be taken into consideration. Ten years have passed since the original filing and deal, and the courts cannot commit to a fair and just ruling after such time without steadfast evidence brought forward to the court.

 

Therefore, we Grant the Motion to Dismiss but in future cases, the right for appeal will stand as it is within the recorded text of the law. 

 

                                                                                                       

[MCVDK 2854]

“Curious” commented the former Chief Justice Basileios Baelius as the missive was read.