- Joined
- Apr 12, 2025
- Messages
- 21
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
APPEAL
Ko531
Plaintiff
v.
The Crown
Defendant
BASIS FOR APPEAL
The court made multiple mistakes in its verdict when it came to the case of Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8, (Mag. Ct., 2025), but more particularly in its interpretation of the Government Information Act. These mistakes, made up of poor readings into legislative intent and ignoring problematic precedent, have resulted in the fundamental death of this act and the relinquishing of power when it comes to who has the final say over an interpretation of law.
The court’s main mistakes come in its interpretation of section [§8. (2). (i)] of the Government Information Act and the idea of “Reasonable requests” regarding making FOI Requests. The act in question fails to define what qualifies as a “Reasonable request” and only gives a quality that disqualifies a request from being reasonable. The court left this ambiguity up to the FOI recipient's discretion, “[§8. (2). (i)] Gives a lot of power to a deciding entity to suggest whether or not something is a ‘reasonable request’, in this case, the reasonable request is decided upon by the High Chancellor.” The plaintiff has no issue with this decision by the courts; the question of what is a reasonable request is not one brought in this case.
What the plaintiff does take issue with is a problematic interpretation that even the presiding magistrate makes clear mention of, that the only interpreting body of what makes a reasonable request is the FOI recipient with zero ability for a citizen to challenge such interpretation “In saying this, I do recognize the potential issues in empowering these entities with what is considered a ‘reasonable request’ or not and being unable to contest this at all -- In contrast to what I had deliberated upon earlier about classifications, the Government Information Act does not permit a bar of review over what is a reasonable request”
This interpretation kills the Government Information Act as FOI requests are no longer required to be complied with. Any arbitrary definition can be created to find ways to deny all requests. This defeats the idea of transparency that this bill strives to create between the government and its citizens. The presiding magistrate did explore the possible legislative intent on this section, yet failed to come to an outcome, “... and as such an argument that this was not the intention of the Act is not as clear to see.” The plaintiff finds it disturbing that the Magistrate was so unsure of the possible legislative intent of this section. It is hard to come to the conclusion that an act designed for transparency with built-in mechanisms to challenge classification statuses to avoid abuse would intentionally have such an abuseable section, making everything previously stated null and void.
This lack of an avenue for citizens to challenge government interpretations of what makes a request “reasonable” is also an act by the court to relinquish its final say over how the law should be interpreted. A citizen would not have the ability to challenge the government as they would for any other law’s interpretation and enforcement. The court is not granted any such ability to give up such powers of interpretation to other government bodies. This verdict by this act erodes the foundation and reason the courts, as a branch of the government, exist to interpret the law and resolve disputes. Such a detrimental act can not be left standing.
It is for these reasons that have resulted in the unofficial repeal of the Government Information Act and the court’s own handling over its powers of interpretation that this section of the verdict must be overturned. Not only would this set a dangerous precedent, but the lack of transparency by no fault of the legislators would fundamentally ruin the democracy’s ability to function by leaving the public either uninformed or worse, ill-informed, killing their ability to vote properly.
APPEAL
Ko531
Plaintiff
v.
The Crown
Defendant
BASIS FOR APPEAL
The court made multiple mistakes in its verdict when it came to the case of Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8, (Mag. Ct., 2025), but more particularly in its interpretation of the Government Information Act. These mistakes, made up of poor readings into legislative intent and ignoring problematic precedent, have resulted in the fundamental death of this act and the relinquishing of power when it comes to who has the final say over an interpretation of law.
The court’s main mistakes come in its interpretation of section [§8. (2). (i)] of the Government Information Act and the idea of “Reasonable requests” regarding making FOI Requests. The act in question fails to define what qualifies as a “Reasonable request” and only gives a quality that disqualifies a request from being reasonable. The court left this ambiguity up to the FOI recipient's discretion, “[§8. (2). (i)] Gives a lot of power to a deciding entity to suggest whether or not something is a ‘reasonable request’, in this case, the reasonable request is decided upon by the High Chancellor.” The plaintiff has no issue with this decision by the courts; the question of what is a reasonable request is not one brought in this case.
What the plaintiff does take issue with is a problematic interpretation that even the presiding magistrate makes clear mention of, that the only interpreting body of what makes a reasonable request is the FOI recipient with zero ability for a citizen to challenge such interpretation “In saying this, I do recognize the potential issues in empowering these entities with what is considered a ‘reasonable request’ or not and being unable to contest this at all -- In contrast to what I had deliberated upon earlier about classifications, the Government Information Act does not permit a bar of review over what is a reasonable request”
This interpretation kills the Government Information Act as FOI requests are no longer required to be complied with. Any arbitrary definition can be created to find ways to deny all requests. This defeats the idea of transparency that this bill strives to create between the government and its citizens. The presiding magistrate did explore the possible legislative intent on this section, yet failed to come to an outcome, “... and as such an argument that this was not the intention of the Act is not as clear to see.” The plaintiff finds it disturbing that the Magistrate was so unsure of the possible legislative intent of this section. It is hard to come to the conclusion that an act designed for transparency with built-in mechanisms to challenge classification statuses to avoid abuse would intentionally have such an abuseable section, making everything previously stated null and void.
This lack of an avenue for citizens to challenge government interpretations of what makes a request “reasonable” is also an act by the court to relinquish its final say over how the law should be interpreted. A citizen would not have the ability to challenge the government as they would for any other law’s interpretation and enforcement. The court is not granted any such ability to give up such powers of interpretation to other government bodies. This verdict by this act erodes the foundation and reason the courts, as a branch of the government, exist to interpret the law and resolve disputes. Such a detrimental act can not be left standing.
It is for these reasons that have resulted in the unofficial repeal of the Government Information Act and the court’s own handling over its powers of interpretation that this section of the verdict must be overturned. Not only would this set a dangerous precedent, but the lack of transparency by no fault of the legislators would fundamentally ruin the democracy’s ability to function by leaving the public either uninformed or worse, ill-informed, killing their ability to vote properly.