Supreme Court of Themiclesia
| Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
| 廷理, lêng-rje′ | |
| Established | 1708 (as civil court) 1820 (current jurisdiction) |
| Location | Kien-k'ang |
| Composition method | Appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister |
| Authorized by | Judicial precedents Supreme Court Act (1808) |
| Appeals to | Court of Appeal |
| Appeals from |
|
| Judge term length | Life |
| Number of positions | 4 – 20 (by statute) 15 (currently) |
| Chief Justice of Themiclesia | |
| Currently | Mrai Kjep |
| Since | 1997 |
The Supreme Court (Shinasthana: 廷理, m-lêng-rje′) is an appeal court with limited original jurisdiction in Themiclesia. It was established in 1708 as a court of original jurisdiction for civil disputes arising between foreign soldiers, civilians, and diplomats, nationals, and the crown, in view of the increasing amount of foreigners residing in Themiclesia and numerous unsatisfactory judgments arising from local judges lacking experience. In 1820, it annexed the primary appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over domestic civil cases. Appeals from the Supreme Court went to the Council of Peers (for suits between subjects) or the Court of Appeal (between subjects and the crown). After 1851, all appeals went to the Court of Appeal. Further appeal is possible to the House of Lords after 1845. The Uniformity of Process Act (1900) abolished regional appeals to the Court of Appeal and vested all appellate jurisdiction over trial courts in the Supreme Court.
History
Notable decisions
Rex v. Kam-nem
This 1821 case arose over the responsibility of Kam-nem, a militiaman on foot patrol, who killed a man that a second militiaman, viewing the scene from the opposite vantage point, shouted was robbed just moments ago around the corner closer to Kam-nem. Kam-nem shot the man without seeing for himself the criminal act, and he argued that the man killed had indeed been a criminal, as the second militiaman witnessed and informed him. The jury decided that Kam-nem did not have reasonable information to believe that the victim was a criminal and therefore ruled the homicide criminal. The second militiaman's statement was adjudged insufficient for Kam-nem to shoot the victim. The case was appealed before the Supreme Court, which then affirmed the decision of the city's jury. Kam-nem was executed by strangulation in 1822.
While the rule that clear information must exist prior to using force to arrest or kill had been established, the court's decision in this case clarified that the person using force must have sufficient first-hand information to judge that using deadly force was reasonable.