Common Law Rulings

Justice

Common Law Rulings

Below is a list of all guilty court cases/hearings and the verdict given that makes up common law. Judges must have regard for these previous rulings when making punishment decisions.

Docket Statute Provision Punishment
258 Crimes (Vigilantism) Act 2021 INTERPRETATION BY THE SUPREME COURT: The appellant asked of the court four questions. On the question of the definition of "'intervening in' an official authority's investigation?" and jointly the question of the definition of "'interfering with an official authority's investigation?" the court held that there was no significant difference between the phrases and has jointly defined as " causing hindrance, to such an extent that the authorities' investigation is impaired or slowed down." On the apellant's third question of whether someone may be guilty of the crime of vigilantism if they unknowingly intervene in or interfere with an investigation, the court held that with the principle of mens rea being so deeply rooted within the legal system, the lack of criminal intent would hold weight in any case, however they also made reference to the simple rebuttal of not being aware should not fully acquit the accused party and caution should be exercised when it is abundantly clear an investigation may be at hannd. On the plaintiff's fourth question surrounding the definition of what constitutes an investigation by an official authority, the court gave the following definition: a targeted effort at gathering information or other resources to facilitate any potential additional research, legal procedures or other decisions, wherein that target is narrowly specified."
259 Presidential Awards Act 2019 Part 1, Section 2 (1) INTERPRETATION BY SUPREME COURT: Regarding the question of requirements to be awarded a Presidential Medal, the Supreme Court ruled that all persons whether previously employed or currently employed within the White House must have held a 7iC position in order to be eligible for a Presidential award.
256 Code of Conduct Act 2019 P1, S1(1)(2) INTERPRETATION BY SUPREME COURT: Regarding the question of valid mottos, the Supreme Court ruled that employee mottos must follow the "[WH] RANK [niC] format, where "RANK" shall be replaced by the rank the employee holds and the n with the numerical value of their in Command level. The Supreme Court also held that the rank may be abbreviated where this abbreviation is commonly known.
242 Employment Act 2019 P1, S5(2) Fined 100 Pixels
231 Crimes Act 2019 P1, S10 Demoted by 1 rank
214 Code of Conduct Act 2019 P1, S3(2)(3) 2 Strikes for 2 weeks
210 Prosecution Act 2019 P8, S11(3) Fined 50 Pixels
209 Code of Conduct Act 2019 P1, S1 (1) (7) 1 Strike for 2 Weeks
118 Democracy Act 2019 P1, S4(2)(1) 2 Strikes for 1 Week
111 Crimes Act 2019 P1, S10 Demoted by 1 rank for a minimum of 2 weeks
15 Code of Conduct Act 2019 P1, S1(1)(13) 1 Strike for 2 Weeks