SD v 7starrr0704 2025 Crim 79
SD v 7starrr0704 [2025] Crim 79
| Date of judgment | 27th June 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Confused |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence | 3 month ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Confused
Introduction
[1] The State of SimDemocracy charged the defendant with one count of violating Article 50 (spamming), one count of violating Article 55a (hate speech), and one count of attempting to violate Article 54 (violation of privacy). The State requested a minimum punishment of a 4 (four) months ban on the count of violation of Article 50, a minimum sentence of a 8 (eight) months ban on the count of violation of Article 55a, and a minimum sentence of a permanent ban on the count of attempting to violate Article 54.
[2] The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of violating Article 55a (hate speech) and was sentenced to a ban of ten months by former Judge Ed (who was the judge originally assigned to this matter). The Defense pleaded not guilty to 1 charge of Spamming (Article 50 of the Criminal Code) and 1 charge of Attempt to commit Violation of Privacy (Article 54 of the Criminal Code read with Article 14 of the Criminal Code).
Summary of Argumentation and Facts
[3] The State has presented screenshots from a channel in the SimDemocracy Discord server (#border) where the defendant can be seen to have pinged the “OHS Agent” role thrice in approximately one hour. The Defendant’s repeated pings were accompanied by both requests for assistance from the staff for accessing the server and verbal abuse directed towards various members of the server, including the OHS Agents. The Defendant was warned by an OHS agent against pinging excessively. The Prosecution asserted that by repeatedly pinging the role despite requests to stop, the defendant disrupted communication and the proper functioning of the SimDemocracy community. The Defense asserted that pings, while disorderly, do not constitute criminal spam under the definition required by law because spamming requires an intent to cause disruption or annoyance and a lack of genuine intent to participate in good faith, and the defendant’s pleas regarding his inability to access the server demonstrate a genuine intent to participate.
[4] The Defendant also posted 2 links in the same Discord channel. The Prosecution asserts that these links were malicious and were intended for phishing purposes. The Prosecution provided a “scan” of one of the links, which says that the link is harmful as evidence. The Defense asserted that there is no verified evidence confirming that the links were indeed malicious. Furthermore, the defense asserted that Article 14 requires that an “attempt” must constitute a direct movement toward the completion of a crime. Simply sending a link with no context, pressure, or result does not satisfy this threshold.
Verdict
[5] As per Article 50 of the Criminal Code, the offence of spamming with respect to pings requires: (a) repeatedly pinging a role; (b) with the primary purpose of disrupting conversation, overwhelming communication channels, or causing annoyance to others; (c) and do so without genuine intent to participate in good faith. This court finds that the defendant's actions were repetitive enough to constitute spamming, and the defendant’s actions, including the extremely profane verbal abuse directed towards multiple people, clearly demonstrate intent to cause widespread disruption and annoyance. This court does not wholly disregard the defense’s argument that the Defendant’s actions were the result of his inability to access the server. However, this court opines that while his inability to access the server may explain his behaviour, it can not excuse his disruptive behaviour. This court is of the opinion that just because a person wishes to participate in the server but is unable to do so, it does not grant them carte blanche to cause disruption. The Defendant’s actions were so disruptive that it is impossible for any reasonable person not to conclude that the primary purpose of his actions was to disrupt conversation and cause annoyance, and they were done without any genuine intent to participate in good faith. Therefore, this court finds the Defendant GUILTY of one count of spamming (Article 50 of the Criminal Code).
[6] As per Article 54 of the Criminal Code, a person commits the offence of violation of privacy if they collect, retain, or process personal data without lawful basis. It is important to note that, given the absence of any reference to intent in the wording of Article 54, the offence of violation of privacy is a strict liability offence. Article 14 of the Criminal Code states that a user shall be considered to attempt to commit a criminal offense if they, with their behavior, directly attempt to commit a criminal offense yet do not succeed. This court opines that given the strict liability nature of the offence, if the links are malicious and able to collect data, and if the defendant had no lawful basis to collect said data, the defendant would have committed the offence of attempting to commit violation of privacy regardless of the fact whether he provided any context with the link or pressured anyone to open the link. However, the only evidence offered by the State in relation to this charge is a “scan” of one of the two links, which identifies this link as a phishing link. Given the fact that no evidence has been offered regarding the other link, this court will disregard it from consideration. The State has not provided any context regarding this “scan”; they have not disclosed who conducted the scan; what methods and techniques were employed in conducting the scan; or when the scan was conducted. In SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 28, the Judge held that heavily cropped screenshots can not be considered complete enough for judicial purposes. It is the opinion of this court that the screenshot of the scan is not complete enough for judicial purposes. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that the onus of proving that a person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is on the State. Therefore, this court can not, in good conscience, deprive a person of their liberty on the basis of a screenshot from an unknown source. Therefore, this court finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of one charge of attempt to commit violation of privacy (Article 54 of the Criminal Code read with Article 14 of the Criminal Code).
[7] The Defendant is sentenced to a ban of 3 months for violation of Article 50 of the Criminal Code.