Janissaries v Arymathras [7788] EWLR 1

[Ziya]

Janissaries of the Fourth Legion

v.

Arymathras al-Almadel

Citation: Janissaries v Arymathras [7788] EWLR 1

Coram: Legate Balstan Gloamingdaith
19 Maribeh IY 7788

1.⠀⠀⠀ ⠀	The Accused is one Arymathras al-Almadel. On 19 Maribeh IY 7788, he was charged with one count of Treason pursuant to the Penal Code of Ephia's Well. State's Counsel on record is Rennik Colmes. Advocate is Mirielle Rosseau. ⠀
2. ⠀	At the material time, the Accused was the Candidate for the League of White in the elections of Maribeh IY 7788. State Counsel contended that in his position as a Candidate, the Accused had energetically undermined or attempted to energetically undermine the government. ⠀
3. ⠀	The State's case is, in essence, that on 19 Maribeh IY 7788, the Accused had voted for another League other than the League of White despite being the Candidate for the League of White. This appears to be undisputed by the Advocate and the Accused. Aside from that, the State's case is that the Accused had tried or succeeded in selling his vote and support to either or both the League of Purple and the League of Gold. ⠀
4. ⠀	In support of the State's case, State's Counsel adduced written testimonies from five witnesses: Sephidra Niridhe; Naelin Karstwen; Estellise Azimi ("Apothar Azimi"); Clarissant Llancarfen; and Qari Alriyh ("Mr Alriyh"). The gist of their testimonies is that the Accused had, from either as early as Maribeh 3 or thereafter, discussed giving his support either to the Candidate for the League of Purple or the League of Gold. ⠀
5. ⠀	First, the Court takes the view that the State Counsel's reliance on Mr Alriyh's testimony is misconceived. Mr Alriyh's testimony amounted to his overhearing of two other persons, Argent Argyris ("Mr Argyris") and Apothar Azimi, discussing what the Accused had promised or what Mr Argyris (as he then was) would do or promise in relation to the Accused. It is, simply, an out-of-Court statement made by Mr Argyris and overheard by Mr Alyrih asserting the truth of what the Accused had said or done. It is trite that such is hearsay evidence, and that hearsay evidence should be treated with utmost caution. A distinction may be drawn against, for example, Mr Alyrih testifying that the Accused had told him specifically that the Accused would vote outside of his League in exchange for something from Mr Alriyh. ⠀
6. ⠀	Second, the Advocate had rightly submitted that most of the witnesses were of the League of Purple. Indeed, one of the witnesses is presently the Candidate of the League of Purple. The Court must be ever mindful that witnesses may have political or ulterior motivations in giving their testimonies. While such testimonies are not inadmissible, and are not ipso facto incredible, the Court must test their testimonies against corroborating evidence. A conviction that relies wholly on such testimonies may be otherwise unsafe. ⠀
7. ⠀	The Court moves its consideration now to the applicable principles of law and legal policy. In this regard, there are three points which are relevant in the present case. ⠀
8. ⠀	First, the Court must be cognizant of the political context. We are presently in the voting period of the Maribeh elections of IY 7788. On trial is one of the Candidates, who was selected by the League of White to be a potential future Legate of Ephia's Well. Considering this context, the evidence against the Accused must be cogent and above reproach. Anything less than the highest standard of proof would create circumstances ripe for abuse, where Candidates may be routinely dragged to the Hall of Jurisprudence to satisfy the political end of their political rivals. It cannot be in the interests of our Asterabadian democracy to transform the Hall of Jurisprudence into the arena by which Candidates are expelled from the elections. While the Court is not closing off the real possibility that a Candidate may commit crimes during an election, the evidential burden that must be placed on the State's Counsel must be high, lest we surrender our elections to the machinations of malicious prosecutions. ⠀
9. ⠀	Second, the Court must concern itself with whether the State is estopped from relying on the present act as the singular actus reus of the alleged offence against the Accused. Specifically, the Court has to take judicial notice that the act of a Candidate voting outside of one's League had historically occurred, and the State had declined to prosecute the erstwhile Candidates. The one conclusive act which is evidentially undisputed, then, the State is estopped from relying upon as determinative. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no doubt in the present case that the Accused voted for another League aside from the League of White despite being the Candidate of the League of White. ⠀
10. ⠀	Third, it is especially important to characterize the role of the Judge in the Hall of Jurisprudence correctly. It is controvertible that the doctrine whereby the Legates hold legislative powers and the Judge holds judicial power is part of the basic structure of Ephia's Well. While a Legate often can and does take on the role of a Judge in the Hall of Jurisprudence, Ephia's Well also customarily recognizes that that judicial power may be vested in a Magistrate. It follows then from this doctrine that the Court must refrain from trespassing onto what is properly the territory of the Legates and their legislative policies. ⠀
11. ⠀	In this regard, the Advocate was correct in law when she submitted to the Court that: (a) there is no law against a Candidate voting against his own League; and (b) whether a Candidate is the proper representative of his League is on the League to determine, and not for the State or the Hall of Jurisprudence. Where his actions may undermine the tenets of his League, he must be held to account by his own League. ⠀
12. ⠀	In light of the foregoing, and having canvassed and assessed both the evidence and the law in their totality, this Court is bound by the principles of just law and equity to find that the Accused cannot be found guilty of the charge of Treason as framed. While the Accused may have doubtless voted against his own League of White despite being entrusted with the sacred duty of his representing his League, the Accused is accountable in that wrong not to the Hall of Jurisprudence, but to the League of White. ⠀

EVIDENCE ENTERED INTO THE JUDICIAL RECORDS

[close]