[COR] The Trial of Captain Tyrell

[Mesabi]

Location: Mooreton Bay

The Bailiff's voice boomed through the courtroom. "The court now hears the case of Corrington v. Tyrell, presided by the honourable Judge Swenson. Please Rise!"

Everyone stood.

Courtroom day 1 by North White, on Flickr

"Thank you, you may be seated," Said Judge Swenson

Courtroom day 1 by North White, on Flickr

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Ayrlego, you can take it from here, 

Please do not post in the trial thread unless you are a part of the trial. Discuss the trial here!

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/157202-cor-arriving-at-the-courthouse/

 

[Ayrlego]

After everyone had taken their seats, Judge Cornelius Swenson continued in the calm and measured, yet unmistakably authoritarian voice that had made him famous throughout the Belson courts.

"I understand that this case has caused a deal of controversy in these colonies of Her Majesty. I will take this opportunity to warn all present, I will not countenance any disruption of this trial, or any disrespect of the court. Any who attempt to test me on this point will be held in contempt of this court. I have been told Mooreton Bay has a penal sandstone quarry, I believe a period of no less than three weeks hard labour for Her Majesty to be a fitting punishment for any minifigure I find to be in breach of this order."

He paused, peering above his steel rimmed reading glasses to survey the room with a stern look.

"I will now hear opening statements, beginning with the prosecution"

-----

Over to you @Bregir

Sorry it took a while to get up, for some reason it's a busy time of the year.... (Merry Christmas all!) I did however want to attempt a version of @Mesabi's courtroom for my parts. Lucky I only had to replicate the front, and I have taken some liberties and added some detail to the original, while trying to keep it the overall same style (original here).

Edited December 25, 2017 by Ayrlego

[Bregir]

"Honourable judge, distinguished jury."

The young Alex Wright rose and bowed first to the judge and then to the courtroom.

"What is a state without laws? Without order? If not our citizens, our soldiers, our sailors, foreign captains and merchants, or our international relations and contacts can rely on the policies and positions of our representatives and authorities, Corrington, and her Majesty herself, will lose legitimacy and credibility. This, we cannot allow."

"I thus remind you, good jurors, that we are not here today to discuss or debate whether aggression against a Sea Rat squadron was justified. It was clearly against the policy and laws of her Majesty. Of that, there can be no question."

"Instead, we are here to ascertain whether the attack was an act of piracy, a capital crime, and who is responsible for this attack. The man before us stand accused of a piratical attack on a peaceful convoy of traders. I shall be presenting evidence to support that this attack was piracy. An illegitimate aggression against a neutral part, a peaceful group of merchants."

Pausing for a moment, he looked around letting it all sink in.

"You may ask if this encounter ever took place - if not a foreigner with designs against her Majesty or the WTC could have made it up - and you scepticism is not to blame. However, this is beyond dispute. Logs from Sea Rat and Corlander vessels corroborate the incidence, as does eye-witnesses and leading shipping publications. And even if you should be unwilling to trust such sources, as having been possibly contaminated or tampered with, the very fact that the WTC Beacon has been brought into Freeport as a prize should make it abundantly clear that an encounter took place."

"Now, good sirs, let us bring the guilty part to justice. Transgression against her Majesty's Corrington cannot stand unanswered."

@Mesabi/ @Ayrlego

Not sure what is next, now? Witnesses? Statement from the defence?

[Mesabi]

Jake Cochran stood with one of his infamous smiles. 

We are here today, to prove the innocence of the WTC Captain Tyrell. We're not going to justify the attack. We're not going to pretend that the attack didn't happen. But we will make it clear that Captain Tyrell acted in good faith of Corrish laws. 

So what are the Laws in question?

Piracy is defined as attacking and robbing peaceful ships at sea. Under Corrish Law, as the opposing counsel has mentioned, this is a capital crime. 

But this would require that the Sea Rats be a peaceful nation, and as anyone who has picked up an issue of the King's Port Advertiser in recent days knows, this is not the case.

Jake picked up a folded copy of the KPA and read aloud. 

Quote

In the first engagement, the HMS Mars and HMS Publius intercepted a Sea Rat squadron led by the Corporal Milton headed for Breshaun. The Sea Rats defended themselves against the attack and sent the Mars to the bottom, and the Publius eventually had to put in at Pontelli after it broke off, as it could not make it all the way to Nova Terreli.

Jake Continued.

Quote

Ships Lost at Sea:
Ferret (COR)
HMS Mardier’s Misfit (COR)
HMS Mars (COR)
HMS Pandora (COR)

I think it's fair to say we're at war. And in war, there are casualties on both sides. Mistakes are made. And one of these mistakes was Captain Tyrell's attack on the Sea Rat traders. 

But as we can see, the Sea Rats are not innocent. They have attacked our shipping. And so, Captain Tyrell felt it justified to attack theirs. 

We Assert that these actions were in the service of Corrington. We assert that while misguided, they were fair. And thus, we assert Captain Tyrell's innocence. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright! Time to call the first witness, as chosen by @Bregir

[Bregir]

Alex Wright shook his head contemptuously.

"The defence seems to be misguided in two important matters here.

a) That it is free to single individuals in her Majesty's service to determine, who to attack and who we are, or should be, at war with.

and

b) That this court, in any way or form, has the authority to legitimise piracy by questioning the official diplomatic stance of Corrington."

Once more, he shook his head.

"Regarding item a), as must surely be obvious to even the defence, the policies, laws, and diplomatic decisions of Her Majesty's Corrington can never be subject to individual interpretation. That a declaration of war cannot be made by a rogue captain acting on his own. Should such be the case, the state will fall apart, and Corrington will lose all credibility, as being unable to live up to its commitments and promises. In effect, we would be reduced to an anarchistic group of opportunists, not unlike those of the Sea Rats."

"As to item b), a political decision is subject to political debate and influence, but once taken lawfully, no court can repel or annul it on the grounds of a different evaluation of arguments."

"Hence, I suggest the defence reconsiders its argument. Tyrell's only possible reprove is to prove that his fight with the Sea Rats were not an act of piracy, despite what logs and other sources suggest. Defending oneself by stating that the attack was justified by the political situation is as good as a guilty plea, which, of course, the prosecution will be more than happy to accept, as to do away with the need for further inquiry and cost."

Bowing to the judge respectfully, he added:

"Your honour. Should the defence persist in pursuing items a) and b) without acknowledging that this constitutes a guilty plea, the prosecution is forced to withdraw its agreement to handle this case in a civilian court of law and instead insist that the case is tried at the admiralty court, where it rightfully belongs, and where Tyrell will have little say in its proceedings."

Turning back to the defence, he continued:

"Hence, I cannot rightly proceed to call any witnesses. To my ear, you are either misguided or pleading guilty. I have, for now, nothing further to add, and must demand your position on the matter of the guilty plea."

@Mesabi