[center]
Be it instituted by the Conclave of The East Pacific, under the authority of the Standing Orders of Conclave 1.2 vi upon which these rules shall be based.
Procedural Rules Regarding Precedent
[/center]
ARTICLE A: Status of Precedent and Statutory Law
A.1- Precedent is defined as the legal rules, principals, interpretations, reasonings, and other items tied to trial verdicts or judicial reviews that are upheld through the will of the court. Precedent is considered to be near-equal to the status of laws written by the Magisterium.
A.2- Law written and passed by the Magisterium (hereby referred to as “statutory law”) is considered superior to precedent. Statutory law must be the first type of law examined for any matter regarding a trial or judicial review. This includes in the formation of a verdict and its reasoning.
A.3- Should statutory law fail to be relevant to the situation at hand, precedent shall be the next item considered.
A.4- Should current (or standing) Precedent also be found to be irrelevant to the current matter, then new precedent regarding the matter be formed, but only if it meets the constraints laid out in the Standing Orders of the Conclave.
ARTICLE B: The Forms of Precedent
B.1- Precedent may be found within the following forms:
B.2- Precedent can be found in the form of tying a certain punishment with a certain sentence or charge in a trial verdict.
B.3- Precedent can be found in the form of legal rules, principals, and/or norms established by previous rulings of the Conclave, whether it be from a trial or judicial review. This type of precedent can be applied equally to procedures and offenses.
B.4- Precedent can be found in the form of interpretations of legislation or the Concordat, and may be used in both or either trial or judicial review.
ARTICLE C- Usage of Precedent in Trial
C.1- Precedent may be APPLIED in a trial. In this instance, an ongoing trial will copy the punishment and reasoning laid out in a precedent-setting trial’s verdict. For precedent to apply, both trials must share similar arguments, charges, situation, and statutory law and/or precedent. If the statutory law or precedent considered within a precedent-setting trial has been repealed, then that precedent-setting trial cannot be applied to another trial.
C.2- Precedent may be ADOPTED in a trial. In this instance, precedent may influence a trial’s verdict in terms of reasoning and/or punishment. While non-precedent setting trials and other items may be used for reference, precedent should be examined before non-precedent material and weigh more heavily in decision making than non-precedent material.
C.3- Precedent may be ACKNOWLEDGED in a trial. In this instance, a precedent is deemed irrelevant and will not affect a case.
ARTICLE D: Retroactive Precedent
D.1- The status of precedent will not be retroactively applied to trials declared to be non-precedent forming.
D.2- A change in the definition of precedent shall not affect the precedent status of trials and judicial reviews whose verdicts were passed before the change came into effect.
ARTICLE E: Reversal of Precedent
E.1- In the matter of a trial, precedent may be reversed through a majority vote of Arbiters.
E.2- Trial precedent can be reversed in two ways: a) the precedent status is removed, leaving the verdict intact or b) the verdict itself is reversed, leading to reversal of any precedent said verdict formed.
E.3- In the matter of a judicial review, reviews may be reversed through a majority vote of Arbiters.
E.4- If a judicial review is reversed, all precedent it forms shall be reversed as well.
E.5- Judicial reviews and trials still citing repealed precedent and/or statutory law shall still retain their legal force, unless reversed by a majority vote of Arbiters.