Injunction for Sentencing on Article 22a Cases 2026 SDCR 32

Injunction for Sentencing on Article 22a Cases [2026] SDCR 32

Date of judgment	25th March 2026
Judges	Chief Judge Brandmal Court of Review Judge Matt Cheney Court of Review Judge Tech Support
Held	Injunction on Sentencing for all Article 22a cases is granted.
Applicable precedent	The four step proportionality test should be applied to injunctions (reaffirms Ed (Appellant) v SD (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 12)

MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Matt Cheney

(With Chief Judge Brandmal, and Judge Tech Support agreeing)

Introduction

[1] This injunction, granted by the Court, by the request of Justice Muggy (“Petitioner”) in combination with a Judicial Review of Article 22a §3 of the Criminal Code. Petitioner claims that the sentencing guidelines for the crime of Making a False Report violates Article 22 §5 of the Constitution, which is the reason the injunction was asked for in the first place.

[1.1] The Petitioner originally asked for a stay on all trials where the Prosecution was charging Making a False Report, however changed the scope of the injunction to simply putting a stay on sentencing alone.

Discussion on the Four Limb Proportionality Test

[2] The test for deciding if an injunction should be granted is a four step test discussed in Ed (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 12 ([2]-[5]). We will now apply this test to the matter at hand.

[2.1] First we must determine if the main filing is likely to fail. We considered the seriousness of the crime (pinging SDBI or filing a report without legal merit), and the sentence recommendation attached to it (a ban or mute of over 3 days), and determined that the filing is not likely to fail, thus the test may continue.

[2.2] The second limb of the test is deciding if the injunction requested is capable of achieving its intended purpose. A stay on sentencing for cases with Article 22a being charged would achieve the goal of making sure that no other users are sentenced unfairly while allowing the Court to hear arguments and deliberate on the Judicial Review filed by the Petitioner.

[2.3] The third limb is based on necessity; there must be no other available measure that could achieve the same effect while imposing a lesser burden or having fewer negative consequences. There is not another lawful way to ensure that people are not unfairly sentenced than granting a stay on sentencing for that crime.

[2.3.1] Had the Petitioner kept the injunction request as a stay for all trials as a whole, this limb could have been where the injunction failed. It would have been unnecessary to pause all trials charging this crime when the sentencing of the crime is the issue. As sentencing is one of the last steps in a criminal trial, it is much more efficient to allow those trials to reach the point of contention instead of just freezing them where they were.

[2.4] Now we must decide if the potential effects of denying the injunction would outweigh any potential negative effects of granting the injunction. If we deny the stay then we run the risk of continuing to let users be unfairly punished, which is unconstitutional. If we approve the stay the only negative effect is that some trials would be paused at sentencing, and possibly that some users who committed the crime of Making a False Report would be allowed to be free for longer than expected. When weighing these two sides, one clearly outweighs the other. We cannot allow for users to be punished unfairly for a crime, to turn a blind eye to that chance would be turning a blind eye to democracy and justice.

Verdict

[3] The stay on sentencing for trials where the Prosecution is charging with Article 22a is granted.