SD v Bapple 2025 Crim 164
SD v Bapple [2025] Crim 164
| Date of judgment | 27th December 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Hmquestionable |
| Charges |
1 Charge of Hoax to Doxx |
| Verdict |
Guilty of Hoax to Doxx and Harassment |
| Sentence | Permanent Ban; 3 month ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
JUDGMENT by Judge Hmquestionable
Introduction
[1] The Defendant is charged with Hoax to Doxx and Harassment. The charge of Terrorist Conspiracy has been dropped and is hence dismissed with prejudice. During the trial, the Defense pleaded guilty and I hence convicted the Defendant on the charges of Hoax toDoxx and Harassment, and sentenced the Defendant to a permanent ban and a 3 month ban respectively. I set out my reasoning below.
Prosecution’s submissions on sentencing
[2] The Prosecution recommends a permanent ban for Hoax to Doxx. They cite SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 131, in which I sentenced that defendant to a permanent ban for a similar charge. They cite the Defendant’s constant pinging of the victim with messages closely resembling the victim’s name, to show that this was not a stray joke or offhand comment.
[3] The Prosecution recommends a permanent ban for Harassment. The Prosecution cites the victim’s “clear distress” to demonstrate an aggravating factor.
Defense’s submissions on sentencing
[4] The Defense recommends a 2 month ban for Hoax to Doxx. They cite the guilty plea, lack of malicious intent, being misguided by a law enforcement officer into believing that their messages were legal, and the lack of severity of the offense.
[5] The Defense recommends a 1 month ban for Harassment. They cite the guilty plea and the relatively light nature of the harassment consisting of pings.
Hoax to Doxx
[6] The Prosecution’s citation of SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 131 is not relevant here, as that case was a charge of Hoax to Aggravated Doxxing, which has only a sentence of a permanent ban available. The Defendant is charged with Hoax to Doxx here.
[7] However, I do agree with the Prosecution that the constant pinging of the victim in each message shows an intention to annoy the victim in particular with disclosures of their name.
[8] I do not place any weight on the guilty plea by the Defense. This plea came extremely late, and at a time where significant judicial resources (multiple judges and Public Defenders) had already been used in this case. There is little to no remorse to be shown from such a plea.
[9] I also do not agree with the Defense’s position on being misguided by the law enforcement officer. Despite such a misleading message being unfortunate, it does not deprive or offset the Defendant’s responsibility in the commission of the crime.
[10] I similarly do not agree with the Defense’s pleading that the offense is not severe. While the message, if sent in a vacuum, may have been innocuous, using it as a threat of revealing a person’s name online and compromising their online privacy is extremely harmful.
[11] The primary principle of sentencing in this case must be the need for general deterrence and public protection, under Article 3 §1(h) and (i) of the Sentencing Act. Doxxing has no place in SimDemocracy. SimDem is a diverse online community with people who come to anonymously participate. Breaching a person’s online privacy, or using the threat of doing that to annoy someone is something that must not be encouraged. Additionally, since the Defendant has access to what they believe to be the name of the victim, they must not be permitted another chance to doxx the victim. In such cases, a permanent ban is warranted.
Harassment
[12] The Prosecution has not bothered to specify whether it has charged the Defendant with first degree harassment or second-degree harassment. In any case, there is no intent factor mentioned in the charge, so I will assume it to be second degree harassment.
[13] Such matters should be properly included in the charge, to avoid later issues with the defense being materially misled.
[14] Referring to the exhibit, the Defendant reply-pings the victim one time with the aforementioned doxxing.
[15] I shall attempt to apply a modified version of the sentencing guidelines for First Degree Harassment to this case. They are as follows:
| Art. 53 Harassment (First Degree) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Band | Factors of Consideration | Sentence |
| Band 1 | Victim not seriously affected | 1 Month |
| Band 2 | Victim affected One-off event Remorse shown |
2 Months-6 Months |
| Band 3 | Victim Greatly Affected Repeated Pattern of Behavior Remorse shown |
6 months-1 Year |
| Band 4 | Victim Greatly Affected Repeated Pattern of Behavior No remorse shown |
1 Year+ |
| Band 5 | Where no remorse is shown and defendant constantly threatens to repeat behavior | Permanent Ban |
[16] This conduct falls into Band 2 of the guidelines. This is because the victim is affected and it is a one-off event. There is no remorse shown. Therefore, the sentence should be in the mid-to-high range of 2 to 6 months. I shall place the sentence at 4 months owing to the lack of remorse.
[17] Adjusting downwards by 1 month owing to the second-degree charge, we arrive at a sentence of 3 months.
Verdict
[18] Accordingly, the Defendant is found guilty of Hoax to Doxx and Harassment, and sentenced to a permanent ban and a 3 month ban respectively.
Citations
<references />