Though The Heavens Fall

EMPIRE OF THE STAR

The Imperial judicial system is a variant on the inquisitorial model, in which the officers of the court work together to thoroughly investigate and uncover the truth of the matter, under the guidance of the justices¹ assigned by the court.

(In the remainder of this discussion, it will be useful to remember that unlike many systems, after the streamlining of its legal system by the Great Convention, the Empire makes no distinction between civil and criminal law. Insofar as Imperial law can be divided into two parts, it can be divided into the law of obligations [oaths, contracts, and promises] and torts [injurious acts]; crimes, in this paradigm, are simply torts in which the collective of the citizen-shareholders, represented by the Empire, is an injured party.)

While it is the function of the justices to direct the investigation and to come to ultimate conclusions, the Curial courts of the Empire recognize that it is exceptionally difficult for a single mind, however talented, to fairly investigate and represent multiple opposing points of view. For this reason, the Curial courts make use of advocates. Advocates are also officers of the court, and as such, regulated by the College of Judicature. The function of the advocates is to carry out and direct the fact-finding process, directing the discovery process and carrying out additional investigations, interviewing witnesses, and commissioning expert reports. The summation of the advocates work becomes the case dossier.

The number of advocates varies: the lower bound is three and the upper indefinite. Leaving aside for a moment the Advocate for the Shareholders who we will discuss in a moment, even the simplest case requires two disputants to exist, each of whom requires an advocate for their perspective: thus, the Advocate for the Plaintiff² and the Advocate for the Respondent³. It should be kept in mind that the function of the advocates is to investigate and report from a given perspective in the service of discovering the truth, not to promote a favorable narrative for their client, as would be the case in an adversarial system.

It is permissible⁴ in the Imperial system for both plaintiff and respondent to make use of professional representation in court, in the form of barristers. However, it is not their function to argue for their clients, although they may propose arguments and additional evidence for consideration in the case dossier; rather, it is their function to assist the court in their inquiry, advise their clients on proper legal procedure, and safeguard their clients' rights through the process.

The number of advocates called upon may vary upwards for various reasons: whether a case has multiple disputants from the beginning, in which case the advocates for plaintiff and respondent will be as many in number as the plaintiffs and respondents⁵ themselves, or not, there may be additional perspectives and interests which should, in the interests of justice, be represented.

For example, a simple traffic case involving a collision might include advocates from the odocorp, its maintenance contractor, the vehicle manufacturer, et al. In a divorce⁶ case, children, pets, and other household members will necessarily have their own advocates. Where a tort of pollution of water is concerned, the river's naiad will be represented, if not herself the plaintiff. And so forth.

Always present, of course, although rarely speaking is the Advocate for the Shareholders, who represents the point of view of the Empire as a collective of its citizen-shareholders. It is the duty of the Shareholders' Advocate to speak for the interest of the citizen-shareholder community, with particular reference to the Imperial Peace and to broader societal harmony. It is their function, on the one hand, to remind the court that these vital interests would not be served by allowing a respondent's justification or a plaintiff's mercy to affect the judgment of the case. On the other hand, it is also their function - which may bring them into conflict, hence the emphasis above, with an advocate representing the point of view of the Empire as a governance authority - to advise the court when a typical judgement in a particular case would be damaging to such interests, even to such an extent that it should not be brought at all. In this, they serve as a voice of both great sternness and great clemency.

The trial itself, after the advocates have completed the case dossier, primarily consists of a review of this with all parties present - advocates, barristers, plaintiffs, respondents, and other parties - during which the justices weigh the evidence and arguments there presented, and may question the parties involved and further inquire into statements presented by witnesses and experts to clarify points therein. Their final decision is based on this extensive written record.

- Advisor's Guides: Legal Systems of the Known Worlds,
Three Rings Press (4029)

1. In the majority of the Curial courts, three justices, lords justice, or lords justice of appeal are assigned to investigate each case; the exceptions being the Curia itself, where all five ephors sit on every case, and the junior of the courts of the first tier, the Courts of Common Pleas and Small Claims, where a single justice is deemed sufficient suffices.
2. Sometimes, less formally, referred to as the Advocate for Guilt.
3. Sometimes, less formally, referred to as the Advocate for Innocence. It may also be worth noting that the term accused, for those whose torts are "criminal" in the above sense, or for those who have arrived before the court via arraignment, remains accepted terminology; but since Imperial law makes no distinction between civil and criminal actions, respondent is always the correct term.
4. But not mandatory: in the majority of minor cases, plaintiff and respondent speak for themselves.
5. Except in the unusual case of coadunate actions, in which an advocate may represent the perspective of an entire aligned class.
6. It should be noted that a divorce in which the courts are involved, in the legal system, invariably includes fault; those which can be resolved amicably are done so between the parties and their obligators.