Certified Question in Ppatpat v Birdish 2026 SDCR 4

Certified Question in Ppatpat v Birdish [2026] SDCR 4

Date of judgment	11th January 2026
Judge(s)	Court of Review Judge Hmquestionable Court of Review Judge Thyme
Held	Refer to opinion
Ruling	2-0
Applicable precedent	Criminal proceedings should not be stayed because of the existence of civil proceedings and vice versa.

MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Hmquestionable

(With Judge Thyme agreeing)

Introduction

[1] This case arises from certified questions from the Inferior Court, which read:

Should the criminal proceedings ⁠(SD v Birdish) be stayed?
Should the civil proceedings (ppatpat v birdish152, et al.) be stayed pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings?
Should the civil proceedings ⁠be stayed pending the resolution of the ongoing SDCR case ⁠([2026] SDCR 1)?

Should criminal proceedings be stayed while civil proceedings are ongoing/vice versa?

[2] We note that the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 allows for a recess of a case for no more than 10 days with “adequate reasoning”.

[3] A recent Supreme Court ruling, Ref re Personal Jurisdiction [2025] SDSC 40, states that civil proceedings may not be continued or initiated when a person is excluded. Hence, if the defendant were to be found guilty in the criminal case, the civil court would no longer have jurisdiction over the defendant.

[4] However, this is not “adequate reasoning” to stay a criminal case. Criminal cases cannot be made to be affected by Civil Cases. Adequate reasoning for a stay must relate to the case itself and not external factors, especially in Criminal matters, when the resolution of the case may be important for the protection of the rights of others.

[5] As such, we rule that both the Criminal and Civil proceedings should proceed. As the case SDCR 1 has already been completed, there is no need to stay the civil case for that reason.

Verdict

[6] The Court responds with a No to each question.

Citations

<references />