Ed Murphy wrote: >>You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? > >Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
R1504's penalties are of a criminal flavour. R1742 (i) and (ii) are equity-style civil remedies. Quite different. >> If so, you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" terminology. > >Along with Rule 1504, the phrase is also used by Rule 897 (and Rule >1868, referring to part of 897). Yes. I'm suggesting that you replace the term "Civil CFJ" with something else, possibly "Criminal CFJ", in every rule that uses it, because under your proposed system there is no civil flavour left. The higher standard of proof is characteristic of a criminal court, and the R1504 sentencing options (and the "sentence" terminology) are distinctly criminal. The only civil aspect was the non-penalty remedies in R1742, which you're removing. Non-Civil CFJs are (as they always have been) entirely civil, however. -zefram
