Hearing

MAJORITY OPINION.—First and foremost, the charge of terrorism in SC-130 was heard as a BoS authorization panel, under the Defense Act 2025, while the breach of ethics charge was heard as a regular criminal case, which would follow the procedures under the Prosecution Act 2025.

In BoS addition hearings, the punishment is decided beforehand: Addition to the Ban on Sight list. The NSC must temporarily add the person, persons or group to the BoS list on a temporary basis, which then triggers a hearing heard by a panel consisting of three (3) justices of the Supreme Court. Their sole job in this capacity is to rule on whether the permanent addition is to be made permanent or not, as defined under the strict process of the hearing as defined under Part 4, Section 3(3) of the Defense Act 2025.

This would not apply to the breach of ethics charge, which was tried as a criminal case under the Prosecution Act 2025. The punishment reached in this trial was different than that of a BoS authorization hearing, i.e. permanent Ban on Sight addition, landing instead of addition to all branches' blacklists. The key operation of the law that differs a Ban on Sight authorization hearing from a criminal trial is the amount of Justices. While the BoS authorization panel consists only of THREE justices, a criminal trial might have held THREE, FIVE, SEVEN or NINE justices. As such, the charge of breach of ethics was heard following the procedures of the Prosecution Act 2025, as opposed to the Defense Act 2025, and may thus be retried if new evidence has come to light.

This leads to a fork in the road as for what the Department of Justice may do in relation to the terrorism charge:
(1) A retrial may therefore NOT be utilized, as there initially was no criminal trial for this charge, but the NSC may again pursue a temporary BoS addition, followed by a hearing, as defined in the Defense Act 2025, in which the panel of three justices of the Supreme Court determines whether to authorize or not authorize the BoS addition on a permanent basis.
(2) The Department of Justice may submit criminal charges under the Prosecution Act 2025, but then the defendant would be tried for a Class A crime, which has the maximum allowable punishment of BoS addition, but not the required punishment of BoS addition.

WHEREFORE.—The terrorism charge in SC-130 may not be retried, and must instead either (1) go through the procedures of the Defense Act 2025 again, with the NSC approving temporary Ban on Sight addition for said charge, which must then be heard by a panel of three justices of the Supreme Court to authorize or not authorize said permanent addition or (2) be submitted as a criminal case. This notwithstanding, the breach of ethics charge in SC-130, which was heard as a criminal case, may be be retried following Part 2, Section 5(1) of the Prosecution Act 2025 if new evidence has been obtained following the original verdict.

SO ORDERED.—Associate Justice .Martin delivered the opinion of the court, in which Associate Justices Inconclusive-, Brokyy_ and Pawtistic joined.