Ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Pretzel 2025 SDSC 23
ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Pretzel [2025] SDSC 23
| Date | 29th July 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held | The verdict in SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 was illegal |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION Per Curiam
Introduction
[1] The appellant is seeking review into the sentence given out in SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 on the basis that the permanent ban of the defendant, Pretzel, imposed by Justice Ivy Cactus was not consistent 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, ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21 and Hackerman, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Juliana [2025] SDSC 22.
[3] Due to his role as judge in the original trial, Justice Ivy Cactus did not take part in these considerations.
[4] Due to his role as defence counsel in the original trial, Justice Ed did not take part in these considerations.
Considerations
[5] As established in ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21 and Hackerman, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Juliana [2025] SDSC 22, Judges must follow the statutory sentencing guidelines unless the punishment would be cruel, unusual, or grossly disproportionate.
[6] It is evident that the sentencing judge in the original case failed to impose the required fine, despite the fact such a fine would not violate the precedent set out in ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] SDSC 21 [5] as it is proportionate for the serious crime of Terrorist Conspiracy.
Verdict
[7] SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 is hereby remanded to the original inferior court, so it can impose a fine that it deems appropriate on the defendant.