Essexian Legal System

From MicroWiki, the free micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Essexian Legal System
Overview of the Essexian courts.
Established7 February 2020
CountryCommonwealth of Essexia
Decisions are appealed toState and Magistrates' courts all appeal to Commonwealth Court.
Judge term lengthLife, or until revoked by Bar.
Supreme Judge
CurrentlyThe Honourable Jacob
Since3 June 2020
Lead position endsFor life
Deputy Supreme Judge
Lead position endsFor life

The Essexian Legal System is the structure of the courts in the Commonwealth of Essexia. It was created on the 7th February 2020 under the Judicial Establishment Act 2020. It acts as the Judicial wing of the Essexian political system, separate to the Parliament of Essexia.


The modern system was created by the Rt. Hon. Jack MP in the Judicial Establishment Act (Amended) 2020, on the 23rd January 2020.[1]

Following Essexia v. Giraffe Concordat (2020), Supreme Judge William made the following remarks:

"Over the last few hours our parliament has seen, what I can safely say, a great deal of tumult. Throughout this time I have worked to find a legal solution to the issues which I was confronted with. While this has been erroneously classified as a trial or case of the Supreme Court, it has just the same effect. Throughout this "raging Valentines" I have noticed that the Parliamentary procedure, Constitution, and other legislation has been fraught with complications and convoluted procedure. An inter-tangled mess of checks and balances which are made without reference to one another has left me to wonder if change should happen, should it be a change in policy or a change in ideology. My position as Supreme Judge is one which should remain unbiased, but for the betterment of the Essexian people the way in which our parliament legislates should change. I wish Godspeed to the party who would make it so that no Essexian should ever have to wait for the defense or prosecution t search through a multitude of laws and procedures for justice to be delivered."

The Judicial Establishment Amendment Act 2020 was passed on the 7th July 2020, which altered the wording of the original Act to change a number of articles, including fixing some wording errors as well as the abilities of the Manager of the Bar.[2]

With the ratification of the Third Constitution of the Commonwealth of Essexia on the 11th September 2020,[3] the lower courts were brought into the Constitution, and the powers and roles of the judiciary were expanded upon compared to the previous constitution, which had little to no mention of the legal system. Subsequently, the Judicial Re-Establishment Act 2020 was created to make the JEA compliant with the new constitution. It included renaming the Provincial Courts to the State Courts, as well as the removal of the Dominion Courts, among other changes.[4]

The Essexian Bar released the 'Comprehensive Guide to Essexian Law: Legal Handbook' first edition on the 24th March 2021, which contained a plethora of information regarding the legal system that all licensed members of the Bar, and aspiring lay personnel, were encouraged to study. It included statutes regarding the legal system, all information included within the statutes boiled down to a more readable level, as well as tips to practicing the law. The handbook was written by the Rt. Hon. Jack (The only licensed lawyer at the time) and co-authored by Supreme Judge Jacob. The Second Edition was released on the 29th April 2021, and included Essexian legal cases, precedent and more tips (as well as a new cover). Poplar MLC was also included in the foreword as having produced the guide.


  • Jack v. Jamie (2019) [Civil] - Emperor has the ability to interfere in court proceedings.
  • Essexia v. Giraffe Concordat (2020) [Legislative] - The Commonwealth Court is able to interpret a point of law regarding a specific Bill/Act/Vote in Parliament, and their decision holds some degree of legality over Parliament. The Commonwealth Court is also able to take action against a political party in Parliament for unconstitutional legislation.
  • Lycon v. Essexia (2021) [Civil] - Established a more formal outline for a claim system.
  • Jayden v. Matthew (2021) [Civil] - The courts should avoid unnecessarily restricting or straining laws on liberties and freedom of speech. Public figures are not automatically assumed to have, or uphold the responsibilities of, some form of authority, even if they're MPs. For an infringement on an individual's rights, there must be some kind of action, not just speech - "A distinction between speech and force" - that actually restricted the individual's ability to do something.



In Jack v. Jamie (2019), Earl Jack attempted to prosecute Lord Jamie under the constitution-bound Supreme Court. The trial was Essexia's first, and ended controversially by Imperial Decree from Emperor Terry.[citation needed]


During the events of the Beige Friday, a trial was held by Supreme Judge of the Commonwealth Court William I of Gradonia. This case is known as Essexia v. Giraffe Concordat (2020), and revolved around the legality of the Confidence Act 2020, which was a vote of no confidence against First Minister Finn and Second Minister Lord Jamie. The Judge found that the Bill was in contempt of Parliament, according to an Act which stated “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally."[5] Although Lord Jacob, Deputy Chairman of the Giraffe Concordat urged Earl Jack to dispute this, the Earl respected the Judge's decision, and instead held a second vote, which wasn't in the form of a Bill, against Earl Finn. This vote succeeded, like the Confidence Act, but was given royal assent. Earl Finn resigned, respectfully and quietly, according to the law.

Lycon v. Essexia (2021)

The Supreme Judge, the Hon. Jacob, decided to dismiss the case of Lycon v. Essexia (2021) on the 18th January 2021, stating the following:

The case brought by Lycon against Essexia was predicated upon the legal intent to seek clarification on the stance of the Emperor and the Commonwealth as regards their endorsements of British grocery stores. This case did not raise a valid complaint in doing so, as no tort was stated against the claimant, and the case was not a suitable pursuit of judicial review of delegated legislation. In the future, the following details must be included on the front page of any cases, be they civil complaints or criminal prosecutions: 1) The tort or charge brought against the defendant, and the specific name or organisation of the defendant. The plaintiff or prosecution in any case must state specifically what they are attempting to allege against the defendant. In civil cases, this would mean a statement that the case is a "Complaint by [____] of the tort of [____] against [____]", for example: "Complaint by Mr John Doe of the tort of negligence against Mr Ron Joe". 2) The date of the case, to be listed as DD/MM/YYYY, for example 01/01/2021. 3) The number of the case. When making a case, this will be issued by a Judge once the case is brought before them and approved to be brought before the courts. This case shall not be accepted to be heard before the courts. The case did not list a specific tort to be pursued under a civil case, nor did it have an adequate case for a judicial review of delegated legislation. The statements made that the case was predicated on did not constitute delegated legislation, and as such they could not be held up in court for review. Such clarifications are not the business of the court to obtain. This is the purpose of Freedom of Information requests. As such, this case shall be rejected by the courts of Essexia and will need to be raised again with more concrete foundation and proper layout in order to be heard. The Obiter Dicta of this case is as below: This is the first case attempted to be brought in Essexian courts, and it is not with pleasure that I reject it. I cannot, however, accept it in my capacity as Supreme Judge. In future, the specificity of cases shall be needed to ensure that the law, especially civil law, does not become confusing, dis-coordinated, and disjointed by too many rulings on frivolous subjects. I would also recommend that Parliament act on this as a catalyst to a serious governmental review of the law to outline both civil and criminal legislation.[6]

This was the Hon. Jacob's first case, and the first example of a post-JEA civil case being brought to court.

Jaydon v. Matthew (2021)

The Rt. Hon. Jack Esq., working for Poplar MLC and representing Jayden L., brought the civil case of Jayden v. Matthew (2021) against the Rt. Hon. Matthew on the 25th March 2021, for the sum of ¥5 (£1). It claimed that the defendant had violated up to 5 separate articles in the Bill of Rights against the plaintiff:

Around 17:00 on the 22nd February 2021, the defendant posted a campaign poster, to which my client responded with a humorously edited rendition at 17:06. Another, fixed version of the parody was uploaded at 19:09, to which the defendant replied to with a statement that breached the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The prosecution argues that the defendant, an officer of the state who is required to abide by the constitution, has broken the following articles of the Bill of Rights: Article 2 - He was degraded, or was treated with undue disrespect. Article 3 - He was unable to live free from degrading treatment. Article 9 - He could not say and express what he pleased without the persecution of a figure in authority. Article 10 - Was not afforded the right to protest reasonably. Article 13 - Was not afforded the right "to enjoy and be involved in arts". My client wishes to claim the equivalent of ¥5 in compensation.[7]

The case was postponed a number of times, mostly because the defendant refused to seek legal representation or be present at any hearings. As a result, the case wasn't heard until the 27th April 2021. In this hearing, the entire case was decided without the defendant and based upon statements put forward by the plaintiff's legal counsel. As a result, the Hon. Jacob dismissed the claims as the plaintiff was unable to bring enough evidence to prove that the defendant had convincingly infringed upon the plaintiff's rights. At 19:30, the Hon. Jacob presented the following conclusive ruling on the case of Jayden v. Matthew (2021):

1. A violation of Article 2 of the Bill of Rights within the Third Constitution of Essexia. The claimant proposes that the article's use of "degraded" and "discriminated" be applied to this case. In this instance, in the interests of protecting the reasonable civil liberties of the citizenry of Essexia, the court cannot find in favour of this element of the claim as it would place undue strain on liberties of freedom of speech and expression such that the article shall be limited in future reading to only be applicable to more extreme forms of this degradation or discrimination in public discourse.

2. Further to the ruling on the claim regarding Article 2, a claim regarding the violation of Article 3 is held to be similarly not meritorious due to the docile nature of the speech and expression in question.

3. The third claim is that the defendant violated Article 9, in using their role in Essexian public and political life, persecuted the claimant. The definition this court takes of the "authority" mentioned within the article particularly pertains to the use of powers by those that are accused of breaching this article. The particular case brought by the claimant attempts to hold public figures in general to have some kind of authority and it is on these grounds that a claim of persecution by authority is made. This court cannot support this claim responsibly as placing such a burden on public figures would again be an infringement on civil liberty, and the implied definition of authority within the bill of rights is not suitable for a public figure to be seen as falling within it.

4. Concerning the claim under Article 10, there was raised the notion, by the claimant, that the attempt to tell the claimant to "shut up" was an infringement on the right to protest. This court finds a distinction between speech and force, and given no force was employed in the actions of the defendant, no violation took place that might have removed this right to protest.

5. Regarding a claim of a breach of Article 13, there was the case made by the claimant that the defendant infringed upon the enjoyment or participation of the claimant in the arts. Given that there were no steps taken by the defendant that would have removed any access by the defendant to the arts, or by their audience to their produced art, this court cannot currently interpret there to have been a violation of this article.[8]

Also present to observe the court proceedings in the gallery were Emperor James I, the Rt. Hon. Francis MP and diplomat from the Kingdom of Burdette, Isaiah D.

Essexian Bar

The Essexian Bar (Often just referred to as 'The Bar') is an organisation headed by the Supreme Judge which is responsible for licensing and managing legal personnel, including lawyers and judges. It was created in the Judicial Establishment Act (Amended) 2020, but could only function after the Judicial Establishment Amendment Act 2020.

Members of the Essexian Bar
Name License(s) Position Licensed date
Hon. Jacob State Judge, Magistrate Supreme Judge 23 January 2020
Rt. Hon. Jack Esq. Lawyer Lawyer


  1. Rt. Hon. Jack MP. "Legislation". Archived from the original on 24 March 2021.
  2. Rt. Hon. Jack MP. "Legislation". Archived from the original on 24 March 2021.
  3. Parliament of Essexia. "Constitution". Archived from the original on 24 March 2021.
  4. Rt. Hon. Jack MP. "Legislation". Archived from the original on 24 March 2021.
  5. Supreme Judge, the Hon. William. "Essexia v. Giraffe Concordat (2020) court ruling". Archived from the original on 27 April 2021.
  6. Supreme Judge, the Hon. Jacob. "Lycon v. Essexia (2021) court ruling". Archived from the original on 27 April 2021.
  7. Rt. Hon. Jack MP Esq. "Commonwealth Court claim". Archived from the original on 27 April 2021.
  8. Supreme Judge, the Hon. Jacob. "Jayden v. Matthew (2021) court ruling". Archived from the original on 27 April 2021.