Hackerman, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Juliana 2025 SDSC 22
Hackerman, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Juliana [2025] SDSC 22
| Date | 29th July 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held | The verdict in SD v Juliana [2025] Crim 87 was illegal |
| Ruling | 4-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION Per Curiam
Introduction
[1] The appellant is seeking review into the sentence given out in SD v Juliana [2025] Crim 87 on the basis that the permanent ban given out by Judge ppatpat was not congruent with the mandatory minimum of a three (3) month ban, along with a 1000 tau fine available for terrorist conspiracy.
[2] Due to the relative simplicity of this case it was handled as a summary per curiam without argumentation, as described in In re Article 1, s5 of the Speedy Courts Act 2024 [2025] SDSC 11, Reference re Presidential Dismissal of the Vice President [2025] SDSC 14, and ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21.
[3] Due to his role as prosecutor in the original trial, Justice Ed did not take part in these considerations.
Considerations
[3] This is as clear as day, as stated in ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21 judges are obliged to follow sentencing guidelines as set out in law (when not cruel and unusual or grossly disproportionate).
[4] The judge, clearly, simply forgot to apply a fine (presumably because they assumed there would be no way to levy it), and a small fine is clearly not cruel and unusual nor grossly disproportionate to the crime of Terrorist Conspiracy, as discussed in ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21 [5] (although it is a tad odd). As such, the only possible remedy is to send the case back to the court of first instance so they may consider what fine to apply.
Verdict
[5] SD v Juliana [2025] Crim 87 is hereby remanded to the court of first instance, so it may consider what fine to apply to the defendant.