WHEREAS, given Talossa's unique nature in that it is all too easy to flee justice, it seems proper that criminal trials should be able to proceed without the defendant's presence;
AND WHEREAS this presents unique problems to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial;BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosă in Ziu assembled that the following section be added to El Lexhatx G.6.
Quote6.12. Trials in absentia. If the accused or their representative, being properly informed as stipulated by law, fails to respond to or participate in criminal proceedings as set out above, then a Public Defender shall be appointed to act for them. This Public Defender shall exercise all rights granted to the accused by Organic and statute law.
6.12.1. The accused shall have the right at any time during criminal proceedings "in absentia", to dismiss the Public Defender and to take over their own defence. In such a case, the accused may request that any evidence that had been presented in their absence be presented again; where this is not possible, they will be shown records of it and may comment on it.
6.12.2. Where the case has ended with an enforceable judgment, the convicted party may request a fresh trial within two calendar months of the delivery of the judgment to them. The fresh trial may not lead to an outcome that would be less favorable to the defendant than the outcome of the previous in absentia trial.
Re 6.12.2, given a perfectly plausible problem that might arise is that the convicted party is not able to so request (due to external circumstances), he might reasonably claim to have been deprived of the spirit by the letter. Something to consider.
Quote from: owenedwards on January 17, 2024, 08:56:46 PMRe 6.12.2, given a perfectly plausible problem that might arise is that the convicted party is not able to so request (due to external circumstances), he might reasonably claim to have been deprived of the spirit by the letter. Something to consider.
I think the best answer to this is to extend the deadline? To, let's say, 2 months?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 22, 2024, 04:28:30 PMQuote from: owenedwards on January 17, 2024, 08:56:46 PMRe 6.12.2, given a perfectly plausible problem that might arise is that the convicted party is not able to so request (due to external circumstances), he might reasonably claim to have been deprived of the spirit by the letter. Something to consider.
I think the best answer to this is to extend the deadline? To, let's say, 2 months?
Yes, that's a good faith length I think.
@Sir Lüc @Ian Plätschisch can the CRL have a look at this now plz?
Moved to committee as requested.
Approved.
Looks good to me
Sorry for my being late on my question, I have to improve my knowledge of the legal processes.
Why should we have the following principle " The fresh trial may not lead to an outcome that would be less favorable to the defendant than the outcome of the previous in absentia trial." ? Can't we imagine that the audition of the defendant and the displayed new elements lead to a worse outcome for the defendant than the initial decision made on a less factual basis ? I will vote Contra for this only reason, as this may lead to a systematic appeal to a fresh trial after a deliberate absence in the first one.