Case: Pending Sagg Wizard v. Ministry of Justice (2026) CV 18
- Thread starter Aero
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2024
- Messages
- 230
Opening Statement
Your honour,
The Plaintiff claims they have been denied access to statutory adjudicative procedures. We argue not.
The central question in this case is straightforward: in matters involving minor offences, is the Ministry of Justice always required to initiate judicial proceedings and proceed to trial simply because the accused disagrees with the evidence presented?
We submit that it is not. Judicial review is available to the accused; the burden to initiate it lies, however, with the accused, not the Ministry.
The Ministry of Justice has expressly been given the statutory authority to impose punishment without judicial proceedings for low-level crime.
In fact, the very definition of a misdemeanour is that it is ruled on by the police.* "(l) “Misdemeanor” shall be defined, for all intents and purposes, as a crime that may be ruled on by police with evidence provided by police plugin tools or simple context." *https://cityrp.org/threads/new-criminal-code-act.3223/#post-6080
Furthermore, the New Criminal Code Act also states under enforcement and prosecution procedures:
"(a) Misdemeanors can be contested in a Ministry of Justice ticket. Upon arrest, Ministry of Justice officers must inform the suspect that they can contest the charges alleged against them and ask if the suspect wishes to contest their charges.
(b) Felonies must be indicted in a court of law."
The New Criminal Code clearly gives the police and the Ministry of Justice the authority to rule on misdemeanours.
Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that the police cannot rule on misdemeanours and must go to trial simply because the accused asks should be dismissed.
Does this mean that the judiciary has no authority to review the charges and order a trial if necessary? No.
The MOJ does not prevent the plaintiff to appeal such decisions in court. The plaintiff could have chosen this route instead. However, they have not done this. Instead, their strategy was to attack the authority of the Ministry of Justice, expressly granted by the New Criminal Code.
Essentially, the plaintiff is asking this (District) Court not to resolve a dispute on the merits of the evidence against the plaintiff but to fundamentally rewrite how minor offences are handled within our legal system.
This administrative approach to misdemeanours is not new. It existed prior to the Constitution in the old criminal code and has since been reflected in statutory law, including the New Criminal Code.
The plaintiff argues that the Constitution somehow abolished a long-standing and widely accepted practice. That is a significant claim, and one that should be supported with more substantive reasoning.
However, the Plaintiff has not pointed to any provision in the Constitution that establishes such a requirement. There is no explicit right to a full judicial trial for every minor offence, nor any language suggesting that administrative handling of misdemeanours is prohibited.
In the absence of such language, this Court should maintain the status quo that has existed before the constitution and rule in favour of the defendant.
Your honour,
The Plaintiff claims they have been denied access to statutory adjudicative procedures. We argue not.
The central question in this case is straightforward: in matters involving minor offences, is the Ministry of Justice always required to initiate judicial proceedings and proceed to trial simply because the accused disagrees with the evidence presented?
We submit that it is not. Judicial review is available to the accused; the burden to initiate it lies, however, with the accused, not the Ministry.
The Ministry of Justice has expressly been given the statutory authority to impose punishment without judicial proceedings for low-level crime.
In fact, the very definition of a misdemeanour is that it is ruled on by the police.* "(l) “Misdemeanor” shall be defined, for all intents and purposes, as a crime that may be ruled on by police with evidence provided by police plugin tools or simple context." *https://cityrp.org/threads/new-criminal-code-act.3223/#post-6080
Furthermore, the New Criminal Code Act also states under enforcement and prosecution procedures:
"(a) Misdemeanors can be contested in a Ministry of Justice ticket. Upon arrest, Ministry of Justice officers must inform the suspect that they can contest the charges alleged against them and ask if the suspect wishes to contest their charges.
(b) Felonies must be indicted in a court of law."
The New Criminal Code clearly gives the police and the Ministry of Justice the authority to rule on misdemeanours.
Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that the police cannot rule on misdemeanours and must go to trial simply because the accused asks should be dismissed.
Does this mean that the judiciary has no authority to review the charges and order a trial if necessary? No.
The MOJ does not prevent the plaintiff to appeal such decisions in court. The plaintiff could have chosen this route instead. However, they have not done this. Instead, their strategy was to attack the authority of the Ministry of Justice, expressly granted by the New Criminal Code.
Essentially, the plaintiff is asking this (District) Court not to resolve a dispute on the merits of the evidence against the plaintiff but to fundamentally rewrite how minor offences are handled within our legal system.
This administrative approach to misdemeanours is not new. It existed prior to the Constitution in the old criminal code and has since been reflected in statutory law, including the New Criminal Code.
The plaintiff argues that the Constitution somehow abolished a long-standing and widely accepted practice. That is a significant claim, and one that should be supported with more substantive reasoning.
However, the Plaintiff has not pointed to any provision in the Constitution that establishes such a requirement. There is no explicit right to a full judicial trial for every minor offence, nor any language suggesting that administrative handling of misdemeanours is prohibited.
In the absence of such language, this Court should maintain the status quo that has existed before the constitution and rule in favour of the defendant.