High Court Rules in High Profile Case
Europeia v. Grizzli
Written by Matthew Williams
(Europeia, June 19 2018) - The High Court, in recent days, handed down a ruling in the Europeia v. Grizzli case. A court cause which caught the attention of many in the region and caused a very lively and active discussion in Public Gallery.
The case was in relation to Grizzli, a former CA Chair and Senator in the region, lying on their citizenship application as Airbus and on the most recent return to the original Grizzli name. Whether the crime was committed or not was not up for discussion, as Grizzli pled guilty. The question and subsequent debate were over how tough the punishment for the crime should be. The Attorney General in his opening remarks asked for the maximum penalty for both crimes a 6-month ban for each crime to be carried out concurrently for a total of 6 months of punishment.
Grizzli defended himself in court and was originally planning to not post an argument but after the Attorney General recommended the maximum punishment he posted his own argument. In what may have been a surprise for some or not surprise to others he posted a seemingly well thought out and well-formatted argument tying his case to others such as Europeia v. JayDee which was a very similar case and received a punishment that was not the maximum punishment. Over in the Public Gallery, the discussion was lively in of itself. Most people agreed that perhaps a punishment of 6 months for each crime was a bit over the top as in Europeia v. JayDee, JayDee received a punishment much less than that. Some were saying that due to his past contributions to the region and potential future potential his sentence should be lightened as to “not rob the region of such potential” however some, like Aramor, said "I don't understand this sentiment - why should people get more relaxed punishments just because we think they're "valuable"? I'd hope in instances like these the law would remain impartial and enforce decisions and consequences, not (inherently arbitrary and biased) judgments of an individual's productivity."
Both the defense and prosecution gave its final arguments on June 7 before the High Court went into deliberation to come to a verdict on the case at hand. On June 12 the presiding Justice, The Rt. Hon. Darcness, delivered the verdict of the court. The court, in line with both the claims of the prosecution and admission of guilt from the defendant, found Grizzli guilty of both counts of lying on a citizenship application. The recommendation of the Attorney General of a 6 month concurrent ban was perhaps the base of the punishment given as the court sentenced Grizzli to 3 months of a ban for the first crime and 4 months for the second crime a grand total of 7 months, which is 5 months less than what the maximum sentence would have been. The Court also ordered Grizzli to be stripped of his citizenship but also stated that when his sentence is completed he shall be allowed to reapply for citizenship and the government should treat it as any normal citizenship application. The Court in explaining their ruling cited Grizzli's apparent lack of remorse for the crime he committed with Darcness saying in his ruling "And yet, that same admission of guilt included interspersed claims that no law was broken, and also that this same law would be broken in the future. He even claims that eight months is all it would take to violate this same law again. The Court is forced to wonder, at such an admission, if eight months is what it would take for Grizzli to learn a lesson as well."
However, not everyone was happy with the verdict. Some called it over the top and extreme. Such as HEM who said " This verdict is overly harsh and not what I had in mind when I encouraged Grizzli to return. Very disappointing, and slightly befuddling, ruling from Justice Darcness." Others called it unjust and even called into question of how the judiciary should work and what should be expected of such judiciary with Sen. Prim saying "...This sort of retributive justice is not what I value in our judiciary.". Some, however, did come to the defense of the judiciary with the Attorney General, Drecq, saying "Calling justice retributive simply because you disagree with it is perhaps not the best position to take." Grizzli has however been given the chance to come back at the end of his ban and perhaps then we will see if he is truly remorseful for the crimes he committed.
