This is, like, 90% of the actual burden of proof for the crime, so I'm not sure it makes sense to put it into a preliminary hearing before a judge? Like, you'd want to have a "double trial"? If the accused has to retain and instruct counsel, exactly how are they saved any hassle by going through this process?
It's not a trial, but rather I hope it to be a preliminary hearing before a trial. We don't have a grand jury system and I'm not sure it's feasible to create one, given the size of our active citizenry. Creating a relatively low-stakes sanity check on a full-scale prosecution seems like one way to provide some degree of protection, especially since right now Talossan trial procedures tend to move without impediment from Government charges right to a full trial.
That said, maybe it makes sense to tweak the wording to lower the bar further -- rather than "likely to qualify," perhaps rework the wording to just make it clear it's a preliminary hearing? I'll have to look at some similar examples (like maybe the SLAPP laws? I'm out of my comfort zone at this point).
There is also the problem of: why is this crime so special that it needs a "double trial"? As opposed to, I dunno, treason or harassment within Talossa?
I could be persuaded that we need to reform trial procedure in its entirety and put more scrutiny on all indictments in general at the "reasonable chance" stage. And speaking of, we should probably work up a Miranda list for Talossa: a notice that the Government is required to send to all of the accused, notifying them of their rights, the availability of a public defender, where to find relevant laws, etc.
I get your point about not wanting to open the door to political prosecutions. But any crime can be open to a political prosecution. If you were to ask Lord Hooligan, I'm sure he'd say his own prosecution (out of the aftermath of the ESB Affair) was a political hit-job.
I mean, I think that, too. If nothing else, the treatment of the defendant was outrageous. Charges were brought and dropped nine months later without any briefs being filed and without an apology. The sitting judge rightfully said "[t]he Crown has undertaken a spectacular waste of this Cort's time" and that "[t]he Crown must be rather more thoughtful and careful in future cases, as it has demonstrated a disgraceful carelessness in this one."
But setting that aside as something about which we're likely to disagree, I'll note that you're right, anything can be a hit-job. But we're talking specifically about criminalizing a conviction in a foreign court, beyond our own fact-finding and investigation. If we're going to be ready to impose penalties on someone for something beyond their power to reasonably dispute, they need some protection.
In other words, just
possessing this status will be a crime. We're saying it is a crime to be a person who has been convicted of specific things in certain courts, and that the only burden of proof is "does this conviction exist," something that is usually just a records search away. We have to afford people some protection and avenue to protest not only that their conviction fits the specified categories (which presumably will be what the trial is about) but also a chance to show that the conviction as a whole is unjust. Further, we're also talking about people who may be unable to come to their own defense for some time by the very nature of the accusation (since they'll be in a prison).
I'm open to dropping the special hearing thing, but I think we should raise the bar for conviction generally, then.