SD v 1391131817905619055 2025 Crim 116
SD v 1391131817905619055 [2025] Crim 116
| Date of judgment | 11th August 2025 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Charges | 1 charge of First Degree Harassment (Article 56 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of First Degree Harassment (Article 56 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Sentence | 9 month ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] The State of SimDemocracy prosecutes the defendant (ID: 1391131817905619055) for one count of First Degree Harassment under Article 56 §1. The Criminal Complaint alleges that on or about 18 July 2025 the defendant joined the SimDemocracy Discord server with a username and display name targeting a specific citizen (“@delulu likes **”), seeking a permanent ban as relief. Article 56 §1 requires (i) causing a person or group to feel undue or unjustifiable apprehension and (ii) intention to cause apprehension or reckless disregard as to whether apprehension would result . The State bears the burden beyond reasonable doubt.
[2] The defense pleaded not guilty.
Summary of Argumentation and Facts
[3] The State’s case rested on one screenshot showing the defendant’s display name “Delulu likes SA” and username “deluluvsgrape,” supplemented by two witnesses. The first (logry) described immediate shock, anxiety, and nausea upon seeing the name. The second (the named citizen) described depression and anxiety after learning of the incident. The defence cross-examined both witnesses and argued that (a) “SA” is ambiguous in SimDemocracy (often “State Attorney”), (b) the account’s presence was fleeting with no messages sent, and (c) uncertainty whether the named citizen actually saw the account at the time, thus undermining both causation and intent. Closing submissions raised “impact and doubt”; the State replied that apprehension was actually felt and that the combination of “SA” with “grape” (a euphemism used online for “rape”) evidenced, at minimum, recklessness.
Considerations
[4] The case turns on two questions:
- [4.1] Did the defendant’s act cause undue or unjustifiable apprehension?
- [4.2] Did the defendant intend, or at least act with reckless disregard, as to whether apprehension would be caused?
Findings of fact
[5] I find that the defendant entered the server with the display name “Delulu likes SA” and the username “deluluvsgrape.” The defence did not seriously contest these. I also find that at least one observer (logry) contemporaneously experienced shock and anxiety upon seeing the name; and that the named citizen later experienced distress after learning of it.
Analysis
[6] Article 56 of the Criminal Code protects the community against conduct that causes apprehension that is “undue or unjustifiable.” That qualifier directs the court to a reasonable-person gauge, attentive to context. Context matters here. “SA” can indeed mean “State Attorney” in SimDemocracy argot; but the portmanteau username “deluluvsgrape” situates the display name. “Grape” is widely employed online to evade content filters when referring to rape. Juxtaposed with “Delulu likes SA,” the combined signal is that a named user “likes sexual assault”. That is not clever wordplay; it is a smear touching the private dignity of a person who, the evidence suggests, had previously spoken about trauma. It is reasonable—indeed foreseeable—that such a message would cause alarm or distress. On these facts, the apprehension felt by witnesses was not only real but “undue or unjustifiable” within the statute’s meaning.
[7] The defence urges that fleeting duration and lack of messages should defeat the actus reus. The statute requires causing apprehension; it does not require repetition, sustained exposure, or messaging. A single public act can satisfy the element if it in fact causes undue apprehension. The record shows that it did. The defence also notes uncertainty whether the named citizen saw the account in real time. Article 56 speaks of “a person or group of persons”; apprehension felt by others in the community suffices. The State met that burden.
[8] The second element is mens rea: intention to cause apprehension or reckless disregard as to whether apprehension would be caused. Current law requires mens rea, and the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least recklessness is proved.
[9] People do not arrive at such names by accident. The defendant chose two coordinated identifiers—“Delulu likes SA” and “deluluvsgrape”—that in combination would be perceived, by any reasonable participant, as accusing a named peer of “liking” sexual assault. Even crediting some ambiguity in “SA” in isolation, the pairing with “grape” dispels ambiguity. At minimum, adopting those identifiers while entering a public server was a conscious choice that disregarded an obvious, substantial risk that viewers—especially the person singled out—would feel alarm or distress. That is recklessness within the statute. I so find.
Freedom of expression concerns
[10] Nothing in this ruling chills robust debate. SimDemocracy’s Supreme Court has long held that doxxing, defamation, and harassment do not legitimately convey protected political or religious expression. The conduct here falls on the prohibited side of that line. To paraphrase my own ruling in SD v Flashing Lights [2025] Crim 105 [12], as held in In re Restraining Order Act [2019] SDSC 1, freedom of expression in SimDemocracy is a qualified right: it secures citizens’ ability to express political and religious beliefs, but it does not extend to doxxing, defamation, or harassment, and operates within the higher-law constraints of the platform Terms of Service. Applied here, expression that targets a private individual with insinuations of sexual assault exceeds constitutional protection. The Court accordingly holds that Article 56 reaches communicative acts—including the deliberate choice of public-facing identifiers—when used to cause apprehension; such targeted abuse is squarely within the conduct proscribed by the Criminal Code.
Verdict
[11] The State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (i) caused undue or unjustifiable apprehension and (ii) at least acted with reckless disregard as to whether their actions would cause apprehension. The charge of First Degree Harassment is made out.
[12] The Defendant, is hereby found guilty of First Degree Harassment under Article 56 of the Criminal Code 2020.
[13] The State characterises the conduct as premeditated and targeted. By choosing both a display name (“delulu likes SA”) and a username (“deluluvsgrape”), the Defendant “showed premeditation by planning a specific target, finding something they could target, and picking two separate names to harass them.” The State adds that the seriousness is heightened because, as a witness attested, the Defendant exploited trauma the named individual had previously disclosed in a public channel.
[14] The Defence points to clean prior character and the narrow temporal footprint of the incident. The Defendant has no prior SimDemocracy convictions, the account’s presence was brief, and there is no evidence of any verifiable messages sent. On that basis, the Defence invites clemency for a first-time offender with limited community impact.
[15] I give weight to both sets of submissions. On aggravation, the coordinated choice of identifiers to single out a private individual with an insinuation tied to sexual assault bespeaks calculation and a willingness to weaponise sensitive, previously shared experiences. On mitigation, the account was removed quickly; the conduct did not include additional messaging; and the Defendant has no prior record. Sentencing must remain proportionate even where a permanent ban lies within the statutory range for first-degree harassment (Art. 56 §4).
[16] The Sentencing Act requires courts to apply the applicable sentencing framework, then adjust up or down by reference to aggravating and mitigating factors, and to explain the framework used in the judgment. It also directs the court to general sentencing principles, including severity, social harm, victim harm, intent, antecedents, public protection, and general deterrence ; and to consider if a Terms-of-Service breach was “egregious” (minimum three months)
[17] On this record, both witnesses described significant emotional impact (shock, anxiety, nausea; depression and anxiety). I therefore place the offence in Band 3 (6 months–1 year). Having fixed Band 3 as the starting point, I weigh the parties’ submissions as the Act envisages. The conduct was calculated and public-facing, coordinated across two identifiers, and—in context—weaponised a sensitive disclosure; those are material aggravators (planning; vulnerability). Against that, the episode was brief, there were no further messages, and the Defendant has no antecedents—each a real mitigation under Article 3. On balance, the aggravation elevates the sentence above the 6-month floor of Band 3, but the mitigations justify remaining below the top of the band. A mid-to-upper Band-3 sentence is proportionate.
[18] Applying the Sentencing Act framework for first-degree harassment (Band 3) and the listed principles, and having regard to the Criminal Code’s statutory range, I impose a ban of nine (9) months. This reflects the seriousness and premeditation of the targeted harm while accounting for the brevity of the episode and the absence of prior misconduct. It is so ordered.