Imperial Court of Appeals

The Imperial Court of Appeals was a major criminal and constitutional law court set up in the Empire in the 25th century

## Origin

The Empire's legal system had been complex and considered somewhat archaic, with planetary legal systems referring only the most important of cases to the Imperial Court where, technically, Rex is the supreme arbiter of the law.

This system lead to many overlaps, contradictions and a lack of clarity in terms of the rule of law. Minister of State Justice Elliot Hawthorne brought this to the full Imperial Council who voted to empower a court of Appeals to serve as the "supreme court" of the Empire

## Powers

The Court of Appeals would review legal cases and oversee judgement which would then be binding to the rest of the Empire. As part of the powers given to the court, there was a considerable legal defence fund for those who lacked the means to take a case to the court of appeals.

* Judges serve for life or until they resign their seat on the bench
* Judges are nominated by the Rex
* Judges nomination is subject to "advice and consent" from the Council of Governors
* Judges can only be removed from office for "high crimes" or "corruption" by a majority vote of the current court of appeals
* Court of Appeals judges rulings are not subject to civil law -IE they cannot be sued in civil court for their judgement
* Court of Appeals judges decisions are not subject to libel, slander or other laws where speech is illegal

## Current Bench

Correct as of 2490

* Hallam Fenwick
* Stockley Shaw
* Madline Connelly
* Indira Varu
* Artinvarr
* Emma Sutherland
* Elton Stone

## First Bench

Empress Regina Valane met with a panel of judges, lawyers and other advisers to form the first bench which consisted of:

* Raylee Porter
* Beaufort Lomas
* Ezio Cortez
* Porthos Enderby
* Artinvarr
* Cleander McBride
* Sirtis Ardmore

## Alumni

### Raylee Porter

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

The 60 year old Martian native was a career prosecutor who was appointed to Mars's top bench. Raylee was known for her toughness, especially on organized crime and political corruption.  Takes a strict interpretation view of the law. Considered a conservative

Justice Porter resigned in 2486

### Beaufort Lomas

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

Born on Van Allen's World but practicing law on Nova Terra. Aged 55 at the time of his appointment, Beaufort was a former corporate lawyer turned private attorney.  Beaufort is known for his excellent and witty rhetoric in court.  Has a broad interpretation of Imperial law. Considered a moderate

Justice Lomas retired from his seat on the Court of Appeals in 2484 due to poor health.

### Ezio Cortez

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

The 55-year-old from Avalon was as a top public defence lawyer.  Scrupulous record on corruption and known for fiery court rhetoric.  Favours a broad interpretation of Imperial law. Considered a liberal

Passed away in 2473 aged 73

### Porthos Enderby

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

The 55-year-old from Nova Terra was a public defender appointed to Nova Terra's bench.  Charismatic, eccentric and known for his withering cross examinations.  Porthos is an easy going and collegial judge.  Sometimes favours a broad interpretation of Imperial law. Considered a liberal

Passed away in 2474 aged 74

### Artinvarr

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

The 50-year-old Indirian from St Lawrence was a former marine officer turned public prosecutor.  Rare Indirian in law enforcement.  Known for robust, harsh sentencing.  Can be more lenient to "crimes of passion" or of poverty.  Generally favours strict interpretation of imperial law. Considered a conservative

### Cleander McBride

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

The 65-year-old native of Mars, a former public prosecutor and attorney general on Mars.  Hugely respected and feared.  Known for his brilliant and withering rhetoric in court.  Incisive judgements.  Sometimes favours a broad interpretation of Imperial law.  Has a passion for prosecuting corruption. Considered a conservative but some decisions have trended more towards being a moderate

Passed away in 2469 aged 79 years old.

### Sirtis Ardmore

Appointed by Empress Regina Valane I

The 45-year old native of Van Diemen's world practiced law on New Carthage. Considered an outstanding young prosecutor turned top judge on New Carthage.  Known for her poise, political skill and her tough judgements.  Ruthless on terrorists and state dissidents.  Generally favours a strict interpretation fo imperial law. Considered a conservative

Justice Ardmore resigned from her seat in 2491 aged 89

### Madeline Connelly

Appointed by Empress Aurora Valane I

The 55 year old native of Stark has a strong record as a former prosecutor.  She also worked briefly for CIS as a prosecutor before her appointment to the court on her home colony.  Known to be tough on crime and to strongly dislike corruption.  Favours a strict interpretation of the law.. The first judge to be appointed to replace a former judge. Considered to be a moderate, though she has often sided with the conservatives.

### Elton Stone

Appointed by Empress Aurora Valane I

From Van Diemen’s world, **Elton Stone,** aged 65 at the time of appointment**,** had an excellent record as a
public defender and worked for the Ministry of State justice until his
appointment to the highest court of his home-colony.  Known for his easy-going attitude and his broad interpretation of imperial law. Considered to be a moderate but with a tendency to side with the liberal wing. As his term went on, Justice Stone was seen as the best jurist on the court.

### Indira Varu

Appointed by Empress Aurora Valane I

Earth native, Indira Varu was a lecturer and former prosecutor with an outstanding record on crime fighting and political corruption.  Known for her tough criticism of the political corruption within the Empire.  Favors a mixed interpretation of Imperial law. Considered a liberal.

### Stockley Shaw

Appointed by Emperor Azrael Krane I

Eden based judge Stockley Shaw was a former private lawyer with a superb reputation in court, Shaw was named a partner in a major firm aged 28 and has closed lots of cases and is well known for his skills at making deals, making friends and seeing both sides of the argument. Known to be excellent in front of the press. Doesn’t have a strong track record of ideology and tends to weigh up each case on its merits. Considered a moderate

### Hallam Fenwick

Appointed by Emperor Azrael Krane I

New Corinth based conservative judge Hallam Fenwick was well known for his ferocious approach to terrorists, organized crime and political corruption. He was also known for his harsh sentencing and intractable nature on the nature of Imperial justice. Appointed at age 75, many felt that his appointment would likely be a transitional one. Considered a conservative.

### Emma Sutherland

Appointed by Emperor Azrael Krane I

Earth based former lecturer **Emma Sutherland,** aged 55 at time of her appointment, is a former defence attorney, labour law expert and a leading lecturer at Athens Law School.  Emma is known for her careful, intelligent approach to jurisprudence and her broad interpretation of Imperial law.. Considered a moderate.

## Landmark Decisions

### *Keller v R*.

Civil rights lawyers representing Jamieson Keller, who has been a prisoner of the CIS for over ten years without trial on the basis that it is not legal or equitable that she has remained a prisoner for all this time without CIS having to share any evidence or prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is a terrorist. In a 5-2 decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the legality of CIS's emergency powers. Justice McBride delivered the judgement stating that the Court of Appeals is not there to test the wisdom of the law that grants the CIS emergency powers but that it was there to test the legality of said powers and that they are legal. In a dissenting judgement, Justice Cortez stated that these "emergency powers" should have a sunset clause on them and should be subject to review

### T*echnopolis v Ministry of Robotics*

The court ruled 6-1 that AI's remain "sentient" and are protected by the implied rights that all sentient beings are endowed with, whether registered or not. Justice McBride's decision was fiercely critical of the Ministry of Robotics in his decision, stating that "sentience" should have been the factor that triggered their decision making rather than the existence of a license. Furthermore Justice McBride stated that "sentient beings" can be registered, by a birth certificate for example, but the absence of one did not automatically rob such a person of their citizenship and certainly didn't rob them of their right to live

### *Effingham v Ministry of Robotics*

Lawyers on behalf of Effingham, who has also adopted an AI as her child, will sue to state that as the AI has a “Birth certificate”, they are a citizen of the Empire, whether they have any license to be produced or not.  The Ministry will argue that AI’s are governed by license and that birth certificates do not apply to them and further to that, it will argue that the birth certificate has been obtained fraudulently.  In a narrow decision, the court rules 4-3 that whilst an AI cannot have a birth certificate, that they should be able to apply for the equivalent, otherwise as a citizen of the Empire they are being treated as a “suspect class”.  Justice McBride rules that “any AI, whether constructed under license or not, is a citizen of the Empire by right of their existence and therefore should have the right to apply for a certificate of citizenship.  However, this does not mean their construction was legal.  The legal penalties would then be applied to the party that constructed that AI, not the AI themselves”.  In a dissenting judgement, conservative Justice Ardmore ruled that “the decision to grant AI’s unlimited citizenship was made rashly and that this decision will now leave the door open for unlimited AI production; without a full peer review or the oversight of the Ministry of Robotics”.

### *Feldman v Fort Verekker Colonial Government*

Lawyers on behalf of Renn Feldman, a lawyer and former colonial legislator, sue the colonial government of Fort Verekker regarding the dissolution of the colonial legislature claiming it violates freedom of speech.  The defense counter that the decision was made on the basis of security and the colonial government has an unrestricted right, unless contradicted by Imperial law, to govern as it sees fit.  In another close 4-3 decision, the court upholds the dissolution of the colonial legislature.  Conservative Justice Porter’s judgement is that “the Court of Appeals has no right to overturn the decision to dissolve the colonial legislature on any planet in the Empire; nor interfere with colonial law except where it is in violation of Imperial law.  As the decision to dissolve the colonial legislatures have been made at a local level, the court has no power to overrule that decision and it is, therefore, legal.”

### *Packard v Pandev -Lightning Point*

A candidate for the Imperial Parliament, Jory Packard, was banned from selection on the ballot due to his affiliation with an anarchist group.  He sued the Lightning Point attorney general,Royv Pandev, to get onto the ballot.  The decision was referred to the court of appeals with a view to see whether colonies have the right to say who can and cannot be on an electoral ballot.  In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that colonies have the right to ban categories of person from standing in the ballot, including restricting potential candidates to a particular class of person.  Justice McBride gave the majority decision ruling that “similar to the decision in Feldman, individual colonies have the right to set laws on their planets as long as those rules do not violate Imperial law.”  He did,however, state that individuals cannot be restricted, only classes of person.  Justice Enderby gave a dissenting judgement,
stating that discrimination based on a persons class violating individual citizen rights.

### *Stockley v Bullingham Medical Ltd*

Rashida Stockley sued Bullingham Medical for failing to provide lifesaving medicine to her young daughter who subsequently died as a result of this.  Whilst she has successfully won a civil action, she now sued for criminal negligence. Bullingham’s lawyers argued that under Imperial law, they are required to give immediate lifesaving care, free at the point of use but that providing on-going medicine to a patient would need to be paid for and they could not
educe the cost any lower and that Stockley couldn’t afford the drugs needed.  In a close 4-3 decision, the court ruled that under Imperial law, Bullingham are not required to provide medical care beyond immediate life-saving care, unless paid for.  Justice Porter gave the majority decision, stating that “under Imperial law, only immediate life-saving care must be provided regardless of cost.  Stockley’s need for long term drug treatment did not qualify under this definition”.  Justice Lomas gave a dissenting judgement, stating that where a failure to provide long term care would result in death, this should be provided either free of cost or free at the point of use.

### *Williams v Imperial Parliament*

Colver Williams sues on behalf of the AI community and ADVANCE, challenging the legality of the law passed by the Imperial Parliament banning AI colonies.  The argument is made that all
citizens have the right to establish colonies and for AI to be restricted from
that right makes them a “suspect class”. The lawyers for Williams referenced
the decision in *Effingham.*  The court handed down a 4-3 decision

Overturning the ban on the basis that an individual class of imperial citizens cannot be denied their rights in this matter and arguing that whilst the Imperial Parliament has the power to pass laws, these laws contravene the laws of the Empire. Justice Ezio Cortez gave the judgment stating that “imperial citizens
have the right to establish new colonies with the permission of the Empire,
this law takes precedent over the law passed by the Imperial parliament. As AI citizens are also imperial citizens, the Imperial parliaments law is therefore illegal and overturned”.

### *Miller v Whadham*

Roos Miller, the CEO and owner of a small Martian based media corporation
that was shut down for sharing stories regarding the August Uprising that
contravened “State Security laws”. Lawyers on behalf of Mr Miller argued that this violated his right as an imperial citizen and that the stories released by Mr Miller were all proven to
be verified as true.  The court ruled in
a 4-3 decision that the law was clear on this matter, news stories that violate
state security are banned and the organisation releasing them subject to censure.  Justice Ardmore, in the majority decision stated that “the veracity of the information is not the question; the central point is that the information released by Mr Miller could endanger imperial security and contravenes an existing law that Mr Miller was aware of”.

### ***Dovaris v Chancellery***

 *Tav Dovaris, a civil rights lawyer and author sues the Imperial Government to challenge the legality of the Chancellor’s Executive Order to suspend the*
Imperial parliament.  He’ll argue that
the Imperial Parliament is protected by Imperial law (IE the Prosperity Mount
summit).  The court votes 5-2 to uphold the suspension.  Justice Ardmore gives the majority decision “the actions of the Chancellor are an Executive order, which emanates in Imperial law from the Rexes. It was also upheld in a vote in
the Imperial Council. Therefore, the suspension is legal.”

### ***Cabbot v Meacher***

Leah Cabbot sued her father, Walton Meacher, estate after his inheritance was not paid to Leah as Walton had an NBC card and was spun back up. His lawyers argued that Mr Meacher was still alive and that the terms of his will state the term “upon his final death”. Leah Cabbot’s lawyers argued that “natural justice” stated that inheritance of property is a key component of the Empire and cannot be denied by TND technology. They also argued the moratorium on TND tech invalidates the new will.

The court, in a shock 4-3 decision, sided with Leah Cabbot that the term “final death” was not legally binding and that therefore the will should be honored in its spirit.  Justice Lomas gave the majority decision stating that “new technologies have changed the perspective of citizens of the Empire but they should not be allowed to alter the expectations and enjoyments
of life.  Therefore the term ‘final death’ is not a proper term for a legal agreement.”  The court refused to take a position on
whether the new AI constructed person was actually the same person.  Dissenting judgement from Justices Admore and Porter stated that the legal term was “prone to error” but that the general concept was sound.

### ***Clemenceau v Chancellery***

Augustine Clemenceau is the constitutional lawyer from Whitworth who will sue on the basis that the Chancellor Eleutheria had been exercising power beyond the scope of the office and outside its legal limits.  This case is seen as a clear test case on the limits and power of the Chancellor.

Clemenceau, arguing for the appellants, states that the office of the Chancellor was not meant to serve as Rex, only in the absence of the Rex and that the Council of Governors and the Imperial Parliament, have the power to remove the Chancellor from office with a Vote of No Confidence.

The defense argue that the Chancellor’s powers are “cloned of the essence of those of the Rex” and therefore as the Rex cannot be removed from a simple vote of the Council or the Parliament, neither can the Rex.  The defense also made an argument that the Chancellor currently also has the additional powers of the Regent and therefore exercises the actual powers of the Rexes until new Rexes are appointed.

This saw the case then take on a new dimension on who has the power to call for a Conclave, the Council of Governors or the Chancellor?

The decision was made on a 4-3 basis that the Chancellor’s powers are of an officer of the court who can be removed from office by the Rex but, that in the absence of the Rex that the Council of Governors would need to act as a check to the powers of the Chancellor and Regent.

The Court also argued that the Chancellor’s powers as Regent are also subject to override by a majority of the Council.

The Court also ruled that the Council of Governors has the power to call for a Conclave in the absence of a living Rex and whilst there may be good reason to delay a conclave during a time of war, this would not prevent the calling of a conclave on legal grounds.

Justice Stone, in the majority decision stated that “the Chancellor is meant to be able to run the Government of the Empire but not to be the Head of State or the Executive. In the Empire is ruled by the Rex or Rexes and in their absence, this power would devolve to the Regent. However, the Regent is not intended to rule indefinitely and therefore the Council should retain the power as a necessary check and balance to the power of the Regent and Chancellor”.

Justice Ardmore, in the dissenting judgement, stated that “supreme law making and executive power in our Empire lies with the Rex and in the absence of the Rex, the Regent exercises this power.  However, I must concur with my colleagues that the Regent does not have the legal standing to deny a Conclave.”

### ***Ex Partie Vanheim v Ministry of Communications***

Vanheim based lawyers bring a case against the Ministry of Communications and the wider Empire for its actions in “Operation Coat-Hanger”, an operation targeting House Hawthorne and their government on Vanheim.  The prosecution argue that the operation was both immoral and illegal, operating within the Empire, contrary to IIS operational parameters and illegal as it was interfering in the governance of a colony of the Empire.

The defense argument was first that IIS has a right to act against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that IIS had credible information giving it cause for concern.  The defence also argue that whilst the operation did take place within the Empire, this was done so with the express agreement of the then Minister of Communications, Lord August Solarin.

In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals sided with the prosecution, though justice Connelly made it very clear that her judgement was specific to the operation being illegal on the basis of it being carried out within the Empire’s borders.

Handing down the majority decision, Justice Varu stated that “The IIS acting as an instrument of Imperial Security, cannot conduct operations within Imperial borders and that this needs to be codified into law.  In absence of binding statue, the Court of Appeals rules that any actions undertaken by IIS inside Imperial borders without express permission from the CIS, would therefore be illegal.  The court, however, must support the majority view that the operation itself, whilst immoral and, in my opinion, reprehensible, was legal as it was signed off by the Minister.

A dissenting judgement was offered by Justice Ardmore who stated that “The IIS is one arm of the Imperial security apparatus and the hard work, diligence and professionalism of the IIS must not be compromised by the weakness of the Imperial political class or the bleating of bleeding-heart liberal governors who plot against the Empire and they try to hide behind its legal apparatus. Furthermore, I consider that the actions undertaken in leaking this information, without wider consultation by former Minister Maddox Collingwood to be a wretched and cowardly act”.

### ***Bel Mar v St Lawrence Downport LTD***

Liberal attorney Rena Bel Mar brought a legal appeal against St Lawrence colonial downport charging a refundable entrance VISA to anyone arriving on St Lawrence.  She accused the St Lawrence colonial legislature of this thinly veiled racist action to prevent immigration by “undesirable parties”.

The defense argued that the entrance VISA was designed to encourage responsible immigration to St Lawrence, which has a major budget shortage due to the damage during the Zzenddi occupation.  They also argued that the St Lawrence colonial legislature had the right to apply its own laws, citing the ruling in *Feldman v Fort Verekker.*

In a close 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled against the St Lawrence Colonial Legislature, ruling that Imperial Citizens cannot be charged based on characteristics for their arrival to a planet and that this did not contravene existing laws.  In delivering the majority decision, Justice Stone stated that "the St Lawrence colonial legislature has the right to pass laws for its colony but cannot restrict the rights of movement or residency for Imperial citizens as this contravenes existing Imperial law.  The decision in Feldman does not apply here.”

In a dissenting judgement, Justice Ardmore stated that “the decision in *Feldman* stated that colonies have a right to set their own laws and that the arrival VISA should be held legal on this basis.  Furthermore, the VISA, if altered, would be legal if it was applied across the board rather than to certain classes of Imperial citizen.”

### ***Bramble v Imperial Ministry of Justice***

Lawyers on behalf of Rocha Bramble, an investor in TND, have sued the Imperial Ministry of Justice to attempt to overturn the Imperial Parliament’s law that bans the sale of TND within the Empire.

Lawyers on behalf of Bramble argue that the law prohibiting the sale of TND is prejudiced and based on “outdated religious thinking” and that no study group or committee was set up. Bramble’s lawyers pointed to the fierce religious criticism leveled by Ravenheart in their parliamentary campaigns. They also stated that “natural law” should allow the sale of patented ideas that can extend life.

Lawyers on behalf of the Ministry of Justice stated that what was at stake in this ruling was nothing less than the ability of the Imperial parliament to pass laws, something that is currently codified into Imperial law (see the Democratic Reform Act of 2462).  They also referred to the decision in Keller v R in which justice McBride had stated that the court of appeals did not exist to question the merits of a law, only that it is legal.

The court of appeals ruled in a 7-0 decision that the ban was legal and that individuals did not possess any right to challenge a law passed down by the Imperial parliament or the Council of Governors unless this law is found to contradict another existing law.