IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF ALEXANDRIA
Decision on the Petition of Ko531 v. The Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2025)
THE VERDICT HAS ARRIVED
Preliminary thoughts
To start, this avenue for retrieving information from the government is outlined in
A.P.015 | Government Information Act [§8.(2).(a)]
This didn’t necessarily require a proceeding, as the law advocates for this to be a request to the court and for the purposes of determining the rightful classification of information. [§8.(3).(i)]
The Complaint
The complaint or ‘petition’ in this matter was put forward after a denial of the FOI request. The facts of this are rather simple as there was not much being contested here, and what was I shall elaborate later upon.
An FOI request was made to the MoJ as it was meant to be, and the MoJ -
‘is then expected to make a reasonable attempt to provide all non-classified requested information.’ [§8.(2).(a)] The request was denied as seen in P-001 from the then MoJ Minister Dartanboy, and the petitioner was told
‘The Chancery has decided to classify the discussions regarding the Entreaty for Prior Ponderance’, when asked why the MoJ Minister had responded that
‘I’m not the Chancery’
The Crown’s question of constitutionality
The answer to the ‘complaint’ in this matter did not deny any of the facts put forward other than to neither confirm or deny that the classification expired.
The Government Information Act is clear in this regard-
‘The classification expires when the verdict is announced, however the Chancery may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released.’ [§4.(7)] That is to say that the classification in-fact must have expired.
So the questions left to be answered is whether or not the information was classified after this point, what that classification is, and whether or not it is justly classified.
The only defence offered was that the Crown believes that the ‘Government Information Act’ itself is unconstitutional - and as such could not be enforced, the elaboration found within their opening was quotes from the constitution and a legal theory that because
‘The Chancery is the highest court of the nation’ that it is above having classifications reviewed and lowered- as this would
‘override the Chancery’s decisions’
The idea that The Government Information Act side steps the constitution by enabling a review process for classifications, specifically because the Magistrates’ court is lower ranked I don’t find to be convincing in its own right. The alternative measure here would be to have the Chancery review their own classification to determine whether or not they had classified it correctly- this leaves a gaping hole in transparency that’s only mended by a new Chancery or a change of heart in what should or should not be ‘classified.’ Leaving the average citizen unable to request information from the Chancery unless they say it’s specifically okay- In contrast to every other part of the government which may be subject to a hearing to lower their classification in front of a Magistrate or Chancellor.
Under this theory, the Magistrates’ Court could not review a classification of the Chancery at all, and thus would leave the only available board of review to be the Chancery themselves. I find this to be an absurd notion that any single group within the government is given sole discretion over itself and I do not believe this to be the intention of the law itself.
Challenging laws
I don’t think that any given decision that stems from the Chancery is above review, especially as laws specifically call for it, as it does within the Government Information Act. If someone wanted to challenge the law, there is a venue to do so through Parliament- as well, the law could be specifically challenged through the Chancery if necessary.
That is to say that the venue to specifically challenge this law would not be within the Magistrates’ Courtroom. While It may not be unreasonable of me to suggest that a particular law may run against a constitutional right or freedom- I do not believe it would be correct for me to deliberately ignore the law as passed, or further to order that it be struck in whole or in part, especially as the conditions surrounding this classification run against the idea that I would be ruling against the Chancery.
Classification level
In an attempt to discern the current level of classification, it was seemingly not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner being told
‘The Chancery has decided to classify the discussions regarding the Entreaty for Prior Preponderance’ shown in P-001, but not told why or the level of classification it retained.
How classification is assigned
When reviewing the
Government Information Act, it’s rather specific in how classification is assigned.
[§4.(1)] -
‘A document or channel must be explicitly assigned a classification for the classification to be enforceable.’
[§4.(7)] -
‘Judicial discussions for ongoing court cases are classified by default and no player outside the discussion may be given access to view them, regardless of clearance. The classification expires when the verdict is announced, however the Chancery may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released.’
[§4.(8)] -
‘Classification is officially done in a channel by writing the classification level in all caps. Unless otherwise specified, the classification applies only to future messages but can be made to classify a specific previous message in a channel and onwards.’
[§4.8.(a)] -
‘To classify all messages, past, present, and future, in a channel, the Minister may post the classification level in the channel’s description.’
Glaring issues in the legislation
I don’t intend to use this court as a platform to make political assertions of the text or impose my beliefs on top of it, but I feel It would be dishonest to not point out some of the issues I ran into when attempting to interpret the Government Information Act.
For a classification to be enforceable it MUST BE explicitly assigned a classification for that classification to be enforceable.
[§4.(1)]
However; [§4.(8)] would perhaps seem to imply that the official and enforceable way to classify something would be to apply the classification level in the channel, in all caps.
[§4.(8).(a)] this sub-section seems to imply that only a minister may apply a classification in this form, suggesting that any entity that would classify something, but not themselves be a minister- could not classify in this form.
[§4.(7)] One could possibly argue that this qualifies as an ‘explicit assignment’, but then you run against other problems within the text.
This does not assign a classification level- Is this classification ‘TOP SECRET’, ‘SECRET’, ‘OFFICIAL’, or ‘UNCLASSIFIED’?
There is an argument to be had that Judiciary Information has a SECRET classification only implied from [§6.(1)]
‘By default, security clearances are applied as follows below. However, the Chief of Staff may manage clearances at the direction of the President. Security clearances are reverted to default with a new Prime Minister. A clearance for one branch does not give access to classified information from another (i.e., executive SC-2 does not give clearance to SECRET judiciary information).’
(Ignoring that the legislation refers to a "President") The idea that judiciary information is imbued with SECRET classification comes from the use of `i.e` - “id est”, or more plainly - “That is to say” -- rather than the use of `e.g` - “exempli gratia”, which would to mean “for example”.
It however strikes me as incorrect the usage of `i.e` here, likely being the result of a common mistake in grammatical structure where the author took this to mean “In Example” as the prior text and post text suggest that the default classifications are outlined ‘below’ in subsection 2
[§6.(1)]
‘By default, security clearances are applied as follows below.[...]‘
[§6.(2)]
‘The Security Clearances are as follows:’
Here, the default clearances do not include the judiciary at all, instead targeting Cabinet Members, the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, Ministry employees, members of a ministry, and citizens -- [§6.(3)] opens honorary SC-2 (SECRET) clearance to the monarchy.
Additionally [§4.(7)]
‘[...] The classification expires when the verdict is announced, however the Chancery may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released.’
[§4.(9)]
‘A citizen may only classify to a level they have clearance to.’
The Chancery being offered no default level of classification could only be assigned a security clearance from the Prime Minister- of which has not been provided to the court or made public knowledge to this court’s awareness -- as such, the highest classification the Chancery could’ve assigned would’ve been ‘UNCLASSIFIED’, as they had no access to default clearances and per [§4.(9)] could not classify it any higher.
Reality of Classification
When reviewing the channel for the discussions, it becomes immediately obvious to me that there is no classification set for this channel in line with the law. No message was written in the channel to assign classification, no description in the channel. The only thing to suggest these messages were intended to be classified was the message from the MOJ saying they claimed it was. [§4.(1)] is clear in that the classification must be explicitly assigned in order for the classification to be enforceable.
Prior to the expiration of the classification once the verdict was released. [§4.(7)] It would be explicitly assigned by this Act. Post expiration of the classification would necessitate that the Chancery assign the classification within the channel or document.
It is then clear that this channel was in-fact not explicitly classified and as such has no enforceable classification stemming from the Government Information Act, and so, while there may or may not be an argument to the Magistrates' Court overruling the decision of the Chancery being an unconstitutional action, that is not an argument that applies to the current situation. The Chancery did not classify these discussions and they are per the Government Information Act, Unclassified.
On that particular note, I believe it’s important to distinguish why this case was not dismissed if there is no classification set.
[§8]
‘(3) Any citizen or government body with a significant interest in classified information can request the Magistrates Court to determine whether or not said information is justly classified. This request pertains to all classifications.
(a) If determined that the classified information is not justly classified, the presiding magistrate/chancellor will lower its classification to the highest justifiable level.
(i) Only the presiding magistrate/chancellor shall gain access to the information from the Cabinet. In extreme cases, the executive may request for the High Chancellor to review the evidence instead of the presiding magistrate/chancellor.’
Here we can see in [§8.(3)], paraphrasing- Any citizen can request the Magistrates Court to determine whether or not information is justly classified. This request pertains to all classifications.
[§5.(1).(d)] denotes that unclassified is still a classification and is subject to review all the same. It is not strictly necessary that the MOJ or Chancery have denied an FOI request for a classification to be reviewed.
Reasonable Requests
[§8.(2)]
‘Freedom of Information requests can be made by Parliament, the courts, and/or individual citizens.
(a) A Freedom of Information request made by an individual citizen is made towards the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice is then expected to make a reasonable attempt to provide all non-classified requested information.
(i) Providing the request is reasonable as decided by the Speaker for Parliamentary requests, the Chief of Staff for Cabinet requests, and the High Chancellor for judicial requests.
(ii) A request for something classified by a player without sufficient clearance is always an unreasonable request. The request may be for any unclassified document or chat discussion of the Parliamentary, Cabinet, or Judicial discord servers.
[§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. [§8.(2).(ii)] Notes that anything the requestor would not have clearance for would be an unreasonable request -- as such a petition to the court could be made to lower the classification so that a request could be appropriately made as well.
Simply put, the High Chancellor has a lot of leeway to unilaterally decide that any given request made toward the courts could be an ‘unreasonable’ request, even if that information was itself ‘unclassified’.
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 and as such an argument that this was not the intention of the Act is not as clear to see.
[§8.(2).(ii)]
‘[...] The request may be for any unclassified document or chat discussion of the Parliamentary, Cabinet, or Judicial discord servers.’, It appears clear the intent is that unclassified information is not freely accessible and instead could be deliberated over what is reasonable.
Decision
As I have outlined above the Chancery did not classify this information in line with the Government Information Act and the information itself is unclassified as it
‘has not been assigned a classification’ [§5.(1).(d)].
The plaintiff in this matter has specifically asked for the release of information that is deemed not justly classified. The request process is intended for the Magistrate to lower the classification down to the highest justifiable level, and that level is ‘
UNCLASSIFIED’ and cannot be lowered further.
I will
not be granting the release of information itself as this is not a power delegated to me by the Government Information Act. The process for retrieving information remains the same, citizens should request the information from the MOJ, and the Chancery should comply to provide information that is not classified and is deemed a reasonable request.
In the future, I would urge the MOJ and the Chancery to be better communicators when it comes to information requests. If the request is considered ‘unreasonable’ this should be what the petitioner was informed of -- If the Chancery had classified the information, the level of classification should be provided to the petitioner.
So sayeth the Magistrates' Court
