- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 3,266
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: End
I am representing myself
What Case are you Appealing?: [2023] SCR 5
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 // Appeal: Denied - [2023] SCR 5 - Appeal
Basis for Appeal:
The Court’s refusal to accept this appeal on limitation grounds is inconsistent with its own precedent, legislation, and the Constitution.
In SCR 20, the Supreme Court accepted an appeal more than a year after the original decision. It did so because the appeal met s19(4) of the Constitution, not because it was filed within a particular time period. The Court did not treat appeal rights as expiring for the expressly written reasons for appeal.
The effect of the wording of the Constitution’s Supreme Court Appeals section has not changed since SCR 20. The Court has not overruled that decision, distinguished it, or explained why it no longer applies. Silent landmark decisions are not an exercise of discretion.
If the Court now takes the view that constitutional appeals are subject to a strict time bar, it must say so plainly and justify that position. Until then, SCR 20’s verdict is the common law that binds the Court in identical circumstances.
The reliance on limitation is also wrong in statute. Since May 2020, High Crimes have been expressly excluded from limitation. The Criminal Code repeats that exclusion for corruption as a high crime. The findings in [2023] SCR 5 concern this offence. There is no lawful limitation barrier.
Section 19(4) exists because the Supreme Court can get things wrong. SCR 20 is proof of that. Treating the appeal clause as optional or procedural defeats its purpose. The SCR figuratively crucified the former Chief Justice for effectively weaponising the bench in the appeal against SCR 20, realising why this limitation does not exist against the SCR in decisions where these reasons for appeal exist.
The appeal should be accepted and dealt with on its merits:
1. The constitution expressly provides for supreme court appeals in specific circumstances. This appeal meets those circumstances.
2. Common law supports this appeal’s foundation.
3. High crimes (corruption) is excluded from limitation in law, and has been since May 2020 in the original statute of limitations.
4. The JSA is effectively redundant due to the CCA’s updated limitation standards and is the primary legislative foundation for criminal law.
5. Limiting Supreme Court appeals for reasons that are expressly governed by the Constitution is not reasonable. The Constitution provides that Supreme Court verdicts are final except in specific circumstances. If those constitutionally-defined circumstances are then made subject to the same limitation rules as ordinary appeals, the distinction drawn by the Constitution is rendered meaningless. The Supreme Court is singled out because those limited appeal rights must remain effective when serious judicial error occurs.
This appeal should be read in conjunction with the reasons put forward in my previous SCR 5 appeal (linked).
Supporting Evidence:
I am representing myself
What Case are you Appealing?: [2023] SCR 5
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 // Appeal: Denied - [2023] SCR 5 - Appeal
Basis for Appeal:
The Court’s refusal to accept this appeal on limitation grounds is inconsistent with its own precedent, legislation, and the Constitution.
In SCR 20, the Supreme Court accepted an appeal more than a year after the original decision. It did so because the appeal met s19(4) of the Constitution, not because it was filed within a particular time period. The Court did not treat appeal rights as expiring for the expressly written reasons for appeal.
The effect of the wording of the Constitution’s Supreme Court Appeals section has not changed since SCR 20. The Court has not overruled that decision, distinguished it, or explained why it no longer applies. Silent landmark decisions are not an exercise of discretion.
If the Court now takes the view that constitutional appeals are subject to a strict time bar, it must say so plainly and justify that position. Until then, SCR 20’s verdict is the common law that binds the Court in identical circumstances.
The reliance on limitation is also wrong in statute. Since May 2020, High Crimes have been expressly excluded from limitation. The Criminal Code repeats that exclusion for corruption as a high crime. The findings in [2023] SCR 5 concern this offence. There is no lawful limitation barrier.
Section 19(4) exists because the Supreme Court can get things wrong. SCR 20 is proof of that. Treating the appeal clause as optional or procedural defeats its purpose. The SCR figuratively crucified the former Chief Justice for effectively weaponising the bench in the appeal against SCR 20, realising why this limitation does not exist against the SCR in decisions where these reasons for appeal exist.
The appeal should be accepted and dealt with on its merits:
1. The constitution expressly provides for supreme court appeals in specific circumstances. This appeal meets those circumstances.
2. Common law supports this appeal’s foundation.
3. High crimes (corruption) is excluded from limitation in law, and has been since May 2020 in the original statute of limitations.
4. The JSA is effectively redundant due to the CCA’s updated limitation standards and is the primary legislative foundation for criminal law.
5. Limiting Supreme Court appeals for reasons that are expressly governed by the Constitution is not reasonable. The Constitution provides that Supreme Court verdicts are final except in specific circumstances. If those constitutionally-defined circumstances are then made subject to the same limitation rules as ordinary appeals, the distinction drawn by the Constitution is rendered meaningless. The Supreme Court is singled out because those limited appeal rights must remain effective when serious judicial error occurs.
This appeal should be read in conjunction with the reasons put forward in my previous SCR 5 appeal (linked).
Supporting Evidence:
