In re Ticket Act [2020] SDSC 1

Persuasive precedent
Judgment no longer binding following the 2021 Rebirth Amendment

Danyo Law Library Neutral Citation:
In re Ticket Act [2020] SDSC 1

Original judgment:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q1U9nOQBd89F17GIruyiXHZUxUQ0yHlWIEjVCLHxFl0/edit#heading=h.1lp08hylg0n

MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Danyo
(with Justices Match Stix and Euphyrric agreeing)

[1] Article 22 (right to a fair trial), s3 states that “no one may be punished without their guilt being proven in a court in a fair trial”.

[2] SDBI agents are able to give tickets (s1 of the Act) which consist of a "small punishment" (s2 of the Act). This means that SDBI agents are able to give a punishment summarily without a fair trial.

[3] It isn't enough for the Ticket Act to allow people to request a trial instead of accepting the punishment (s3 of the Act), because the Constitution simply just doesn't allow punishment without a fair trial. This fact can't be voluntarily waived.

[4] In respect to the respondent's argument that it is similar to pleading guilty in a pre-trial, the pre-trial is part of the trial process. If someone pleads guilty during the pre-trial, that only means the trial process is shortened and the judge is able to issue summary judgment. The defendant in those cases did receive a fair trial. We therefore reject the interpretation suggested by the respondent that the pre-trial "means before trial/previous to trial".

[5] Therefore the Ticket Act is unconstitutional on the grounds of Article 22, in respect to the right to a fair trial. It is unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.