- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 494
After significant consideration, I have reviewed the Prosecution's response to the clarifications regarding the flexibility on the criminal penalty for Treason under §6(e)(ii) of the New Criminal Code Act, as well as the cited precedent in Azalea Isles v. OCG (2024) CR02. While the Court acknowledges that the case cited established a historic practice of allowing negotiated downward departures in plea agreements, statutory law has changed dramatically since.
The Criminal Code (May 2024) is fundamentally different from the current New Criminal Code Act (February 2026). While the 2024 version states the penalties as simply "removal from any government job" that enables flexibility, the 2026 version creates a fixed categorical mandate by stating "ban from all government jobs for 4 months."
As much as I'm sure many would like to consider this matter closed for the sake of the judicial economy, the Court is unfortunately constrained by the limiting nature of statutory law in this case. Unlike the fine structure of the penalty for Treason which grants "the discretion of the judiciary," the text for the employment ban does not include it. As such, the statute does not explicitly provide the Prosecution or the Judiciary the authority to alter the scope (the "all") or duration (the "4 months") of this ban.
The Defendant cannot be convicted under the terms of this deal. Therefore, the Court hereby rejects the plea deal presented in this case, and vacates the guilty plea entered by the Defendant that was only offered based on the terms negotiated with the Prosecution.
The parties are free to seek a non-judicial resolution outside of court and jointly request a dismissal. However, this Court will not impose modified criminal penalties that directly contravene the New Criminal Code Act. If the legislature intends to permit flexible plea arrangements for these offences, it must amend the law to grant explicit greater discretionary powers to the Judiciary.
The Court will enter temporary recess while the parties consider their options, and then resume in 48 hours from now.
The Criminal Code (May 2024) is fundamentally different from the current New Criminal Code Act (February 2026). While the 2024 version states the penalties as simply "removal from any government job" that enables flexibility, the 2026 version creates a fixed categorical mandate by stating "ban from all government jobs for 4 months."
As much as I'm sure many would like to consider this matter closed for the sake of the judicial economy, the Court is unfortunately constrained by the limiting nature of statutory law in this case. Unlike the fine structure of the penalty for Treason which grants "the discretion of the judiciary," the text for the employment ban does not include it. As such, the statute does not explicitly provide the Prosecution or the Judiciary the authority to alter the scope (the "all") or duration (the "4 months") of this ban.
The Defendant cannot be convicted under the terms of this deal. Therefore, the Court hereby rejects the plea deal presented in this case, and vacates the guilty plea entered by the Defendant that was only offered based on the terms negotiated with the Prosecution.
The parties are free to seek a non-judicial resolution outside of court and jointly request a dismissal. However, this Court will not impose modified criminal penalties that directly contravene the New Criminal Code Act. If the legislature intends to permit flexible plea arrangements for these offences, it must amend the law to grant explicit greater discretionary powers to the Judiciary.
The Court will enter temporary recess while the parties consider their options, and then resume in 48 hours from now.