SD v Bapple 2025 Crim 165
SD v Bapple [2025] Crim 165
| Date of judgment | 18th December 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges | 1 charge of Unlawful Use of Alternate Accounts (Article 23a of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Not guilty |
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] The State brings a charge of Unlawful Use of Alternate Accounts against the owner of the account bapple0775 (Discord user ID: 1374995472397242381). A different user was banned pursuant to Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2025 (CPC), and the accused rapidly filed a petition to the Supreme Court to appeal the ban.
Timeline of events
[2] On 23 November 2025 at 12:56am UTC, Judge ppatpat announced the ban of NaCl (ID: 954067855538815008) for a Terms of Service (TOS) violation. Five minutes earlier at 12:51am UTC, the defendant filed a petition to the Supreme Court, alleging that the banned account had posted a single image that did not qualify as a TOS violation. The defendant was subsequently banned, and is or has been the subject of multiple criminal trials.
- [2.1] While not entered into evidence, both sides conceded/argued that #border-control made public the occurrence of the ban (but not its reasoning) before the ban was formally announced.
Arguments from both sides
[3] The prosecution argues that only an account with access to #sdbi-judiciary could have known the nature and reason for the ban of NaCl. Few roles have access to this channel where the SDBI requests warrants, bans, etc. from judges.
[4] They argue that while the fact of the ban is made public in #border-control, the reasons are not. The defendant rapidly drafted a petition, assumed it was under CPC 15, and cited a specific message that is alleged to have been why.
[5] The defense counters that any number of other explanations exist, instead of assuming that the defendant is an alt. The main explanation they rely on is that someone with access could have told the defendant.
Case law considered
[6] Under State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Mooklyn (Respondent) [2023] SDSC 7 [13], “No requirements for the burden of proof are to be created by any Judges out of thin air, the requirements for burden of proof are stated in Article 2 of the Criminal Code and definitions of law and Terms of Service must be followed perfectly.”
[7] In re 39th Presidential Election [2020] SDSC 11 [12] follows the common law understanding that balance of probabilities means “more likely than not”.
[8] Under Ferris and Brandmal ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Peppa (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 4 [28], “It is not the judge’s duty to draw links where the advocate does not, particularly when it goes to the burden of proof.”
[9] Per Dominax273 (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 1 [21] the right to a presumption of innocence is a foundational right. This directly supports Article 21§2 of the Constitution: “Every person charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
[10] SD v Mythrows [2025] Crim 51 [5] ruled that a court may not create rebuttable presumptions where none exist. Oppositely, the court may not erase a statutorily created presumption.
[11] SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 117 [15] ruled that affirmative defenses put the burden of proof on the defense. This is likewise true with rebuttable presumptions.
[12] SD v Satitty [2025] Crim 91 [15] ruled that the burden of proof cannot be reversed. The law is clear that for Unlawful Use of Alternate Accounts that the prosecution must prove the accused is an alternate account on the balance of probabilities “despite any other law to the contrary”.
[13] Proving the crime requires showing on the balance of probabilities that the account is an alternate account, but the specific owner of the account does not have to be proven. The law rebuttably presumes malicious intent: such was never mentioned and thus is presumed by this court.
Considerations
[14] As conceded by both sides, #border-control gave notice to the defendant that NaCl had been banned. In the petition filed to the Supreme Court, the defendant indicated that the banned account had only sent one image in the server.
[15] A criminal trial does not start with a blank slate where the court considers either side as equally likely to prevail. As pointed out in the appeal of dominax273, the presumption of innocence as found in the Constitution is a foundational right. Much as the prosecution is relying on the presumption of malicious intent here, the defense is relying on the presumption of innocence. This cannot and shall not be shifted.
[16] While the court can conceive of both other reasons why the defendant might have known more about the ban and better reasons why the defendant might be an alternate account, the court cannot entertain its own arguments for either party.
Verdict
[17] Thus, despite the statutory burden of proof being lowered from the usual beyond reasonable doubt, it is still on the prosecution to tip the scales towards the balance of probabilities. The presumption of innocence prevails over the evidence and argumentation submitted, and the prosecution has not proven guilt is “more likely than not”.
[18] The owner of the account bapple is not guilty of Unlawful Use of Alternate Accounts.
Obiter dictum
[19] Article 29§4 of the Constitution reads: “Every person shall have the right to petition a competent court for judicial review if their rights have been unlawfully infringed and the right to seek effective judicial remedy.” This court echoes SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 117 [12.2] in cautioning the State against using someone’s invocation of their rights as evidence against them. While it is not absolutely contraindicated like the right against self-incrimination, it can have a chilling effect and itself unlawfully infringe on the rights of citizens.
Citations
<references />