Verdict
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Appealed: Case No. 07-2021-06-01
I. ORIGINAL CASE DECISION
1. On July 9 2021, the Federal Court of Redmont ruled with a default judgement by the Hon. Judge Matthew100x, as the result of the Defendant's failure to respond due to inadequate counsel.
2. The Federal Court granted the full compensation to be split between the Plaintiff and the other respective victim of the crime, along with a court-ordered termination of Deekade1004.
3. This appeal was accepted July 24 2021, and therefore the Supreme Court has now been able to convene on a respective judgement with all arguments presented.
II. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, nnmc, alleges that CoCoLocoDog murdered them and MoyUwU. When the murder was reported, the Plaintiff claims that Trainee Officer Deekade1004 did not arrest CoCoLocoDog and instead gave him a verbal warning.
2. The Plaintiff claims that even after opening a ticket with the Department of Justice, they did not charge MoyUwU with murder, instead opting to charge him with merely assault, even though evidence indicated otherwise.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Department of Justice neglected their duty of care by refusing to investigate the situation further.
III. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, claims that the compensation granted in the original case does not correlate to the result of a single death.
2. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, alleges that since the law for police misconduct also enforces jail time, it was only intended to apply to only police officers as individuals that can be charged with police misconduct.
3. The Defendant asserts that the Department acted within the resources that they had, as CoCoLocoDog used a bow, which bugs the coroner reports.
IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the the unconditional reliance on the coroner plugin is fundamentally flawed with a severe disregard of the fundamental principles of justice. While the coroner report is often reliable, the Department of Justice must exercise its discretion in situations where guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The evidence indicated by the Plaintiff in picture format proves beyond a reasonable doubt the murder that CoCoLocoDog had committed, along with the witness account of MoyUwU. Even when presented with picture evidence, the Department of Justice did not act to provide protection to the citizens of Redmont.
3. The court believes that the Department of Justice has a lawful duty of care - one specified with its constitutional duty to maintain peace and good order - and that by not acting on this evidence or even investigating further, they have breached such duty.
4. While agreeing with much of the verdict in the original case, we do believe that an unlawful injustice has occured in the court ordered termination of Trainee Officer Deekade1004. The Employee Protection Act examines that a government employee cannot be held legally responsible if they are acting within department directions and policy. We believe that Deekade1004 was acting within the directions of the department on their pre-existing coroner report policy and has not committed any sort of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remarks from the Hon. Westray:
Although the most rigorous tool for determining guilt of murder is the coroner report - it should not be the sole indicator. This is a matter the Department of Justice has even admitted to, by creating the investigator job after this incident. It is a grave injustice when the victims of a murder have had to go as far as to take legal action against the Department of Justice, instead of having their concerns investigated by the Department of Justice. The matter of this case is one of a very simple rhetorical: if our justice system is supposed to follow the principle that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proves guilt, why doesn't the Department of Justice abide by that?
Additionally, I believe that the accusation made against Trainee Officer Deekade1004 is one not grounded in reasonable justice. The Employee Protection Act exists to protect employees from being punished for acting in the direction of Department leadership and or their policies. I hope that this case acts as a protection for employees who have been stifled with accusations of guilt simply at the direction of department policy. With such considered, it is my belief that this case is fundamentally about an outdated policy of inaction - one that exhibits basing our entire justice system for murder around a coroner report.
I hope that this case being upheld by the Supreme Court will remain a lesson to those trusted to enforce the law. The Department cannot simply blame the coroner report for not properly enforcing the law, when tools evidently exist beyond the scope of such. It should be stressed that coroner reports do play a fundamentally important tool as is, however that tool should not act as a hindrance to alternative evidence that may prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Westray, Chief Justice
Remarks from the Hon. 218218Consumer (Acting as Interim Justice as Speaker):
While I understand and respect the Department of Justice's commitment to the fair, accurate, and impartial exercise of justice through the coroner plugin, it is my belief that when evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the information provided by a coroner report or a lack thereof, it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Department of Justice to exercise discretion to ensure the safety of Redmont's citizens. I hold that the Department of Justice is grossly negligent in said responsibilities through its current unconditional reliance on the reports, particularly in the face of evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The plaintiff argues that coroner reports are far from a "gold standard of evidence": taking the unregistered nature of bow murders into consideration, I am inclined to agree. This is not to say that coroner reports should be disregarded. In fact, they are frequently the most reliable (and only) evidence available to the Department of Justice, but when even stronger evidence presents itself, the Department can and must act on it. This is especially considering the fallibility of reports.
Further, while it is my opinion that the $5,000 compensation provided to the plaintiff was not proportionate to any emotional damage from his murder, it holds merit in the time taken by the plaintiff toward assembling a legal argument and arguing a case, which is an incredibly arduous process for the sole purpose of receiving justice. As a result, I believe the relief granted was appropriate.
The defense argues that the law of Police Misconduct was designed to target individual officers and not the Department of Justice: however, this interpretation would force the court to consistently undermine the Employee Protection Act and punish officers for following a department policy entirely unrelated to their personal discretion.
The unreliability of coroner reports in all instances has been a long-standing issue on this server, and the Department of Justice must adapt a more flexible and reasonable policy in response. It is irresponsible to rely on absolute certainty from coroner reports when coroner reports cannot provide absolute certainty themselves. As a result, I concur with the ruling of the Hon. Matthew100x.
- 218218Consumer, Speaker of the House (Interim Justice as constitutionally mandated)
V. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby unanimously adjourns to uphold the original verdict of Case No. 07-2021-06-01, while also enforcing a modified order on the termination of Deekade1004.
Since it would be rather irrelevant to retroactively overturn the court-ordered termination of Deekade1004 given the three week period he was barred from had ended, the Supreme Court would simply prefer to express formal discontent with the initial termination of the officer, while leaving it up to the Department of Justice on whether they wish to reinstate him.
Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.