Ref re Personal Jurisdiction 2025 SDSC 40
Summary Decision - Ref. re Personal Jurisdiction [2025] SDSC 40
| Date | 17th December 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held |
|
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Britz
(with Chief Justice TheLittleSparty and Justice Literal agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The core question presented in the petition is whether the State of SimDemocracy retains or asserts personal jurisdiction over an individual who has been legally banned, such that the individual in question may be compelled to appear within legal proceedings brought by or involving them.
[2] In the case that such personal jurisdiction is found to exist, whether such does not violate fundamental rights to due process and a fair hearing as afforded by the Constitution.
Summary of the Petition
[3] The petition consists of several sections, including:
- [3.1] Due Process and the Adversarial System, which discusses the nature of the adversarial court system and the State’s ability to lawfully exclude individuals from its territory via a ban. It continues this line of reasoning such that someone lawfully excluded cannot fairly be compelled to appear to participate in an adversarial court.
- [3.2] The Nature of the Ban and Constitutional Safeguards, which continues to expound upon the interaction between the State prosecuting a lawfully excluded person, and how that interaction creates a dichotomy of impossibility for the lawfully excluded and simultaneously prosecuted individual, as the State’s claim of personal jurisdiction to render that prosecution simultaneously prohibits the individual from exercising their right to defend themselves meaningfully.
- [3.3] Agreement with Real World Jurisprudence, which discusses standards used outside of SimDemocracy to establish when personal jurisdiction can be found to exist, as a form of substantive persuasive precedent.
- [3.4] Relief Requested, which asks for a binding ruling clarifying a series of questions, as well as requesting a declarative ruling holding that lawfully excluded persons are prohibited from bringing civil actions within SimDemocracy’s courts for the duration of their lawful exclusion.
Summary of the Response
[4] This case was heard summarily by the Court, and as such invited no response.
The Ambit of the Petition
[5] This petition submits a series of questions, the crux of which are listed below:
- [5.1] Does the State retain or assert personal jurisdiction over lawfully excluded individuals?
- [5.2] Does a person who is lawfully excluded from SimDemocracy experience a violation of their rights to a fair hearing and to due process when a criminal or civil proceeding is begun in which they are a party?
- [5.3] Does due process require that a lawfully excluded individual be returned to SimDemocracy via some avenue to permit their court actions to be brought legally?
- [5.4] The petitioner then seeks a declarative decision holding that lawfully excluded individuals are not permitted to bring civil actions within SimDemocracy’s courts.
Does the lawful exclusion of a user terminate the general personal jurisdiction over them possessed by the State of SimDemocracy?
[6] At the heart of the petition, indeed, the name of the petition, refers to whether the State of SimDemocracy retains personal jurisdiction over individuals who are lawfully excluded from its territory.
[7] The Court must consider two factors to assess whether such a termination occurs:
- [7.1] First, what qualifications are required for personal jurisdiction to exist in the context of SimDemocracy?
- [7.2] Second, do any or all of the qualifiers for such personal jurisdiction to exist cease when a user is lawfully excluded?
[8] On the first point, Article 1 §5 of the Criminal Code defines a Person for the purposes of that legislation’s jurisdiction as:
- [8.1] §5. A person is defined as any user who has, or had, the capacity and intention of participating in SimDemocracy.
[9] The Court holds this to also serve as defining the scope of personal jurisdiction of the State of SimDemocracy and all its relevant institutions, regardless of a person’s status of lawful exclusion.
Do civil or criminal proceedings against a lawfully excluded person violate that person’s rights to a fair hearing and due process?
[10] This question is really two distinct questions rather than one:
- [10.1] First, does bringing criminal proceedings against a lawfully excluded person violate that person’s rights to a fair hearing and due process?
- [10.2] Second, does bringing civil proceedings against a lawfully excluded person violate that person’s rights to a fair hearing and due process?
[11] Firstly, it must be said that for a person to have been lawfully excluded from SimDemocracy, it must be presupposed that not only that they already have received due process for their right to liberty to have been abrogated in the first place, but also that they must have either exercised, or had the opportunity to exercise, their right to legal counsel as a subset of their right to a fair hearing.
[12] Notwithstanding the lawful nature of the exclusion, once imposed, it is a substantive barrier to a person’s ability to participate in a trial in any meaningful way. The excluded person is, by definition, denied the ability to attend trial, and cannot respond to evidence or arguments directly. These conditions negate the principles of the adversarial system and due process. Nevertheless, where a criminal defendant has already appointed legal counsel prior to being banned, or where the State has made a reasonable attempt to contact the excluded individual (except where this threatens the safety of an attorney), the continuation or initiation of criminal proceedings does not, of itself, offend the aforementioned constitutional due process. Whilst the inability of an excluded person to appear in person is a significant limitation, it constitutes a permissible infringement necessary to prevent impunity for otherwise serious crimes, such as ToS violations. It is the belief of the Court that inferior courts can fairly determine which types of crimes are serious enough to warrant proceedings to be continued or commenced during a period of exclusion. Hence, the State is not barred from continuing or initiating criminal proceedings during a period of exclusion, provided the defendant has adequate representation that can safeguard their rights, and the crime is serious enough to justify this permissible infringement on their rights.
[13] However, the second question [10.2] concerning civil proceedings is not subject to analogous reasoning. Civil proceedings, unlike criminal ones, do not engage the States’ duty to enforce the law, as they are purely adversarial disputes between private parties. Civil redress cannot outweigh the constitutional requirement that each party be afforded an opportunity to participate in the dispute, as an excluded individual is denied the most fundamental of these abilities. Corollary, civil proceedings may not be initiated or continued against an excluded individual. Legal representation cannot remedy the fundamental unfairness of a party who is barred from SimDemocracy to litigate against one who is not.
Decision
[14] The Court holds that SimDemocracy retains jurisdiction over lawfully excluded individuals, who remain “persons” for constitutional purposes. The Court also holds that whilst criminal proceedings may continue or be initiated during an exclusion where the defendant has appointed counsel, or where reasonable efforts have been made to offer them such, this can only be permitted for serious crimes. Civil proceedings, on the other hand, may not be commenced or continued whilst an individual is excluded.
Citations
<references />