The defence categorically maintains Rach's innocence of both treason and espionage. Additionally, it finds this statement by the Priests lacking in detail and therefore difficult to respond concisely to. If the Priests would allow the defence to indulge, we submit the following:Wymondham wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:19 pm Hear Ye, Hear Ye
The Council of Priests finds the defendant Guilty. However we accept some of the defenses arguments about the the Pharaoh's actions.
Therefore before we deliver a sentence I invite and encourage the defense to mitigate and explain to us why the defense feels that we should not impose the Pharaoh's recommend sentence.
Regarding espionage, the defence is deeply surprised that the Priests have seen fit to declare Rach guilty. The operative part of espionage is the discovery and unlawful disclosure of real information to other parties, that will impact the security of Osiris. The defence disputes that any sentence should therefore be imposed for the disclosure, under orders from the Pharaoh, of false information in a planned situation to specific people, that would indeed have no impact on the real security of Osiris. Rach's disclosure of false information was neither unlawful, nor was it a threat, nor was the information real. Indeed, the Pharaoh agrees with the defence that there never was a plan to conduct a raid on Christmas. The defence urges the Priests to consider that this odd application of espionage, if considered to its logical extent, would cover, indeed more convincingly so, false rumour-mongering by outside forces that happens to pose a security risk to Osiris. This would not even require a perpetrator to have ever resided in Osiris, or indeed have communicated with a single official in the region. It is clear that the intended purpose of espionage is to cover the unwanted discovery of non-public information, along with its disclosure to outside entities. Rach's situation matches none of this.
Regarding Treason, Rach absolutely believed and indeed still does believe that she was operating under orders from her superior officer and friend, the Pharaoh of Osiris. The defence finds it hard to believe that a subordinate official can be guilty of Treason, while the superior officer who ordered their actions is not. The chain of command surely ensures that a superior officer is culpable for any orders they give. It is unclear to the defence, given the vague nature of the above statement by the Priests, whether this aspect is one of the defence arguments that the Priests sympathise with. If it is, then the defence urges leniency from the Priests on account of Rach operating under what she believed to be entirely lawful, if strange, orders. That Rach's conduct has been called into question by the very person who ordered her to engage in it, while said person remains unscathed by the law, is deeply concerning.
The defence thanks the Priests for their time, and for granting this opportunity to speak further.
