Hearing

The Supreme Court has considered the request for interpretation of P8, S3 of the Prosecution Act 2025, specifically whether a Court of Appeals case may be settled outside of Court.

MAJORITY OPINION
The Court finds that the settlement procedure established under P8, S3 does not apply to Court of Appeals cases.

P8, S3(1) expressly provides that:
“All Supreme Court and District Court cases must make an attempt to settle outside of Court.”

The Act therefore specifically identifies Supreme Court and District Court cases as the proceedings subject to the settlement process. Court of Appeals cases are not included within that provision.

This distinction is consistent with the different purpose and jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

Under P2, S1, a Court of Appeals is used for appeals concerning matters such as Training Kick on Sight, National Punishment, Ban on Sight or branch blacklists, data removal, rejection of a case by the Department of Justice, and rejection of a Freedom of Information request.

Furthermore, P2, S4(1) provides that a Court of Appeals only has the power to authorise or decline an appeal.

An appeal is therefore different in nature from an original Supreme Court or District Court case. The Court of Appeals is reviewing an existing decision or action and determining whether the appeal against that decision should be allowed. It is not determining an original criminal charge between two parties for which the statutory settlement procedure was created.

The Court also considers the structure of P8, S3 as a whole. The provision does not merely state that settlement is generally available to all cases while making it mandatory for certain courts. Rather, it establishes a specific settlement procedure in which Supreme Court and District Court cases must attempt settlement, anything may be offered and accepted during that process, and the Department of Justice must oversee the Settlement Hearing.

Reading these provisions together with the limited appellate jurisdiction provided under Part 2, the Court finds that the statutory Settlement Hearing procedure was not intended to operate as an additional stage of a Court of Appeals case.

The fact that P8, S3 does not expressly use the words “Court of Appeals cases may not be settled” does not require the Court to extend the settlement procedure to a category of case which the provision does not include.

The Court further distinguishes between a Settlement Hearing under P8, S3 and the parties independently resolving the underlying issue.

Nothing in this opinion prevents the relevant parties from voluntarily resolving the matter which gave rise to an appeal. For example, an authority may independently reverse or correct the decision being appealed. However, such an action does not create a statutory Settlement Hearing for the Court of Appeals under P8, S3.

Where the underlying dispute is resolved before the appeal is determined, the appropriate consequence may instead be withdrawal or other disposal of the appeal in accordance with the applicable court procedure.

Accordingly, the Court holds that:

1. P8, S3 does not require Court of Appeals cases to attempt settlement
2. The statutory Settlement Hearing procedure under P8, S3 does not apply to Court of Appeals cases
3. A Court of Appeals case should therefore proceed through the appellate process rather than through a Settlement Hearing
4. The parties remain free to independently resolve the underlying matter where legally possible, but such a resolution is not a Court of Appeals settlement under P8, S3
5. The Court of Appeals remains limited to the powers granted to it under Part 2 of the Prosecution Act 2025

This majority opinion is issued by Dreckly, Chief Justice, alongside Senior Associate Justice Faaaaiiitthh, Associate Justice Inconclusive-, Associate Justice Pawtistic, Associate Justice .Martin and Associate Justice Brokyy_.