It was the correct context. No need to apologise.
Goobergunchia wrote:The Ice States wrote:I apologise for not having noticed this, given how quickly this was drafted and not being in the original draft I reviewed. However I would very strongly disagree with the final argument. If the public interest clause really is that exploitable, the "refraining from prosecuting a case" exception (which explicitly falls under the test) would allow for "police discretion in enforcing minor offences". Even if it isn't that exploitable (I don't think it is), the public has a rather clear interest against unnecessary arrests, so member nations would have a solid argument for allowing such discretion.
We would observe that an arrest made to duly enforce an enacted law could hardly be deemed "unnecessary." While the public has an interest in proper allocation of law enforcement resources, surely it can never "outweigh the public's interest in accountability under the law" for law enforcement to ignore crimes being committed in front of them unless they are actively engaged in clearing a greater crime?
[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
[OOC: I mentioned jaywalking, incidentally, because California recently decriminalized it because of selective and racially-biased enforcement. I'm not completely opposed to saying that WA members just can't have that kind of minor offense, but ... you'd probably be asking for, like, everybody to implement automated traffic enforcement which probably merits its own discussion.]
Whoo hoo...
(In character - I very rarely use character here:
The Bear is delighted to receive the support of
[Lord] Michael Evif, Goobergunchian WA Ambassador.)