Summary of Chancellor Dakaren's latest amendment

[John Knighthawke]

This summary reflects Chancellor Dakaren's feedback.

-Sir John Knighthawke
Knight of Minoc, late of Newcastle
Aide to Governor Tanda of Minoc
Knighthawke Trading Company

Changes a reference to “immunity” from criminal prosecution to “invulnerability” to criminal prosecution (a change that should have no effect).

Changes the location of provision deeming proven “abuse” of these immunities to be “high treason.”

Provides that immunity may be removed by act of the High Council. Specifies that a motion for the removal of immunities requires the support of three “officers, ministers, or councilors of the High Council.” Further specifies that, once the motion receives the required support, a majority vote of the Council to do so shall remove the immunity.

Removes the requirement that the impacted individual (whose immunities are removed and accordingly is suspended from duty) be acquitted “in a trial” of the High Court to be restored to duty. (Presumably this means that any action of the High Court that is tantamount to an acquittal is enough to restore someone to duty.) (Chancellor Dakaren denies this is a change from current practice – I think it is, though. A pre-trial dismissal of charges, which arguably should count as an acquittal, arguably would not have been so counted before, and now would.)

Adds a requirement that BAF members who detain, arrest, or levy charges against an “officer, minister, or councilor of the High Council” must currently be ranked Field Marshal or over. Authorizes the arrest or detainment of an “officer, minister, or councilor of the High Council” if he or she poses “an imminent threat to the Kingdom” or performs a “witnessed” act of High Treason.

Provides that members of the High Council only may be removed from office or bound for trial pursuant to the process described in this Article or by other provisions of the Constitution providing for removal from office due to non-attendance at the meetings. Removes references to Councilors being removed to office due to “criminal activity.”

Specifies that resignation is required of members of the High Council found guilty by the High Court ( as opposed to any “guilty verdict”).