Judicial Review
Comments
MAJORITY OPINION.-The Prosecution (Case Processing Deadlines) Act 2026 conflicts with the Constitution and previous Court rulings.
This Court has previously heard similar Amendments in our S.278 and S.282 rulings. "Creating unnecessary time restraints on the bench to issue rulings in a 10 day period is a display of Congressional overreach that the Constitution intends to prevent." *S.278*. "Limiting the Court in this way violates the Right to a Fair Trial by pressuring the bench to issue rulings based on a time limit rather than considering supportive legal argument, extensive statute law research and deliberations amongst the rest of the Court." *S.278*. "The Right to a Fair trial doesn't pertain solely to Criminal Trials, rather any proceeding heard before any Court." *S.282*.
Part 1, Section 2(3)(2) places unnecessary time restraints on the Department of Justice to attempt to settle cases within a three day period and Part 1, Section 2(4)(2) places unnecessary time restraints on the Department of Justice, District and Supreme Court to schedule and commence and conclude within a four day period. Part 1, Section 2(7)(2) requires the Court of Appeals to commence and conclude within a three day period.
All steps of a case/hearing/trial should not be dictated by time limits, cases will vary depending on the severity of the offense, amount of evidence required to review, proper gathering and preparation of witnesses, preparing court arguments, research of law, motion drafting, ensuring a time is applicable for ALL parties, etc. All of which could take longer than the prescribed 14 or 10 days as outlined in this Amendment.
WHEREFORE.-The Prosecution (Case Processing Deadlines) Act 2026 is hereby UNCONSTITUTIONAL and shall not take effect.
SO ORDERED.-Senior Associate Justice Inconclusive- delivered the opinion, in which Chief Justice Dreckly, Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti, Senior Associate Justice Brokyy_, Associate Justices .Martin and Pawtistic joined.