1. It's ordinary PROCESS. If someone THINKS he broke a law, they make a REPORT, the police are DUTY bound to INVESTIGATE.
2. For MOST laws, detention/ REMAND is at the pleasure of the police INVESTIGATING OFFICER/ IO, for a period, afterwhich further detention is must be APPROVED by a MAGISTRATE / court. SOME laws move this power from the COURT to the EXECUTIVE branch - this INCLUDES the Sedition Act, which allows the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/ PP that power.
3. The IO gets to DECIDE whether the investigation can be ENDED, or if it is to be REFERRED to the PP. In the latter case, the PP then gets to DECIDE, if they want to take the ALLEGED OFFENDER to court on behalf of the EXECUTIVE branch, and CHARGE them with breaking the law.
4. If the case goes to COURT then the PLAINTIFF and DEFENDENT / alledged offender then each argue their sides of the case, and a judge makes a RULING. As you are aware, rulings can be APPEALED, ding dong ding dong, escalating through higher and higher courts until the SUPREME COURT.
To each party, may the odds be ever in your favour 🫶🏻🫶🏻
FWIW, I think Rex may be guilty of sedition based on the public facts of the case at this point. The investigation may yield new facts, so we have to keep an open mind. The bigger problem is that the Sedition Act is defined very broadly, and that's why some of us don't like it.
It comes down to whether you want a very clear law that allows clearly defined speech freedoms, or a vague law that basically says don't be annoying.
No comments :
Post a Comment