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
Use of force and self-defence
The Themiclesian law on homicide in the early 19th century distinguished between intentional and unintentional homicide, depending on foreseeability. If the homicide was unforeseeable, the law further distinguished the manslayer's degree of responsibility. If not negligent (虞), they only needed to pay damages to the victim's family; if negligent (失), i.e. pulling down a building without clearing it, and killing in the process, the manslayer was imprisoned for six years and paid damages. If the homicide was foreseeable, the onus was on the defendant to prove they had a valid excuse to commit the homicide, such as self-defence, defence of another, or the arrest of a violent criminal. If ruled that the homicide was committed in self-defence, the defendant incurred no responsibility; if not, the homicide was criminal (賊), and capital punishment was imposed. In the words of Lord Sin J., the law "is in favour of the real victim and demands from the manslayer strong proof that the homicide was inevitable or justified."
The 1821 Rex v. Kam-nem 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.
In the related case of Rex v. Sut C. in 1834, where Sut, the defendant, was accused of killing a person whom he saw carrying silver plates out of his house in the night of Dec. 20, 1833. Sut argued that he exercised the right in self defence according to the ancient law that an intruder at night could be killed with impunity. The jury found, however, that Sut did not kill the intruder immediately but after he observed him carrying plates out of the house, indeed for long enough that the plates were handed off to his accomplice at the gate. They recognized that Sut was able to discern that the plates were silver in the darkness of the night, which the jury believed indicated the place was lit. Thus, Sut had not acted in self-defence but rather in defence of his plates. The homicide was ruled criminal, and Sut was executed by strangulation in the same year.