SD v Juliana 2025 Crim 87
SD v Juliana [2025] Crim 87
| Date of judgment | 28th June 2025 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Charges | 1 charge of Terrorist Conspiracy (Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Terrorist Conspiracy (Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Sentence | One Permanent Ban and 1000 tau fine |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] The State of SimDemocracy has charged the defendant with one count of violating Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2020 (Terrorist Conspiracy).
[2] The State requested a minimum punishment of a permanent ban.
[3] The Defense pleaded not guilty to the charge of Terrorist Conspiracy (Article 51 of the Criminal Code).
Procedural Matters
[4] The prosecution requested a summary trial under Article 11, §1. of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025.
- [4.1] I find that the use of a summary trial would not be against the interests of justice. As such, I accept this request.
[5] The prosecution then attempted to rescind their request for summary trial, and wished to continue the trial as a normal trial.
[6] Under Article 11 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, I do not find this to be a valid motion, or request. There is no provision for reverting from a summary trial back to a normal trial.
[7] As such, proceedings will continue in summary trial.
Summary of Argumentation and Facts
[8] The State provided evidence (Exhibits 1.1-1.3) establishing TIDE as a terrorist organization, officially confirmed by prior cases (SD v. Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 and SD v. TIDE [2025] Crim 70). Additionally, evidence (Exhibits 1.1-1.3) confirmed the phrase "Semper Invictus" as the official TIDE slogan.
[9] The State further presented Exhibits 2.1 and 2.3, demonstrating the Defendant's direct use of the phrases "all hail TIDE," "Semper Invictus," and notably the Defendant's statement: "you've failed TIDE and I have been assigned to expose you." The State argued these statements confirm the Defendant's deliberate affiliation and participation in TIDE activities. Moreover, Exhibit 3.1 (redacted by judicial order) contained evidence indicating that the Defendant engaged in harassment and doxxing, notably releasing sensitive private information.
[10] The Defence countered by providing screenshots and testimonies (from Juliana and Guava) to establish their arguments (authenticated subsequently after a prosecution objection). The Defence argued:
- [10.1] Lack of intent and ignorance of the law: Juliana stated she had “little knowledge” of TIDE and SimDemocracy, acted upon encouragement from her real-life friend (Guava), believing the actions would be "funny," and claimed ignorance of the terrorist status of TIDE and its significance.
- [10.2] Provocation: The defence provided testimony from Guava admitting they were the instigator, confirming they had instructed Juliana specifically to say "Semper Invictus" and "I love TIDE" without Juliana fully understanding the significance.
- [10.3] Jest: The defence cited SD v usernameselected [2025] Crim 73 , arguing that Juliana’s acts, performed in jest, do not meet the legal threshold for a terrorism conspiracy offence.
[11] The Prosecution’s cross-examination response argued strongly against the Defence’s claims:
- [11.1] The Prosecution clarified that SD v usernameselected [2025] Crim 73 does not apply here because the current offence, under Terrorist Connected Accounts Act definitions, includes a presumption of intent.
- [11.2] The Prosecution emphasized that Juliana’s specific statements (Exhibit 2.3), arguing they directly indicate awareness and active participation ("you've failed TIDE and I have been assigned to expose you").
- [11.2] The Prosecution argued that following instructions from a known TIDE member establishes, rather than mitigates, Juliana’s complicity, given the severity of TIDE’s officially recognised terrorist status.
[12] In closing, the prosecution cited the Defendant’s repeated support for TIDE, direct statement of being “assigned” by the organisation, and the act of doxxing as aggravating factors. They argued that a permanent ban is the only proportionate response to prevent further harm and ensure public safety.
[13] In closing, the Defence advanced three key arguments:
- [13.1] Ignorance: that the Defendant was unaware of TIDE’s terrorist status and acted under influence from a friend.
- [13.2] Jest: that the conduct was performed as a joke, not with malicious or criminal intent.
- [13.3] Remorse: that the Defendant is genuinely sorry and has learned from their actions, suggesting rehabilitative rather than punitive treatment.
[14] The Prosecution, in rebuttal, asserted that ignorance is not a defence, noting that the law criminalises acts of support, not one’s internal beliefs. They argued that the Defendant’s conduct constituted operational support under the law, and that remorse may influence sentencing but not the question of guilt.
Sentencing recommendations
[15] The Prosecution argued for a permanent ban, stressing that the Defendant’s actions; explicit support of TIDE and the severity of doxxing, warrant maximum sentencing.
[16] The Defence argued for a limited sentence (3-month ban), stating that the Defendant had been in SimDem in multiple stints for at least 2 months, and had not committed immediate crimes, and as such there was no malicious intent.
- [16.2] The Defence referenced Article 11, §4 of the Courtroom Procedures Act, which states: “ Notwithstanding any provision of any law, apart from §1.1. of this Article, the maximum punishment which may be provided through a summary trial for each charge is a three (3) month mute or ban, except for crimes in the First Schedule of the Criminal Code, which shall follow the original time limit stated. If the original crime provision has a lower maximum sentence than 3 months, that lower maximum sentence shall apply.”
Verdict
[17] Under Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2020, a person commits Terrorist Conspiracy if they:
- [17.1] Commit terrorism as defined in Article 1 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts Act;
- [17.2] Are a member and supporter of a terrorist organisation as defined in Article 2 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts, or;
- [17.3] If they meet the standards for terrorism under any other law.
[18] Article 51 §1.1 of the Criminal Code 2020 imposes a rebuttable presumption: if it is proven on a balance of probabilities that a person is a member of a terrorist organisation, they are presumed to also be a supporter, unless the contrary is proved.
[19] The definition of a terrorist organisation under Article 2 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts Act includes groups organised to commit any terrorism under Article 1 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts Act, including harassment and doxxing. “Supporters” include those who knowingly commit crimes in support of the group, or act as operatives.
[20] I find that Terrorist Conspiracy (Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2020) does not require the Prosecution to prove intent or knowledge as part of its case in order to prove that they are a member and supporter of a terrorist organisation. Membership and support are the operative elements of the offence. As per §1.1, once membership is proven on the balance of probabilities, support is presumed. It is for the Defence to rebut that presumption.
[21] Firstly, I do not find the defence’s arguments on lack of intent and ignorance of the law persuasive. As elucidated above, I find that intent is not needed for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is a member and supporter of a terrorist organisation. I do not find ignorance of the law persuasive, as Article 7 §1 of the Criminal Code 2020 explicitly states that it does not deprive a defendant of liability for crime.
[22] Secondly, I do not find the defence’s arguments on provocation persuasive. As per Article 10 §1 of the Criminal Code 2020, provocation is defined as “when a person has committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control.” I do not find that a friend asking you to say things might cause a reasonable person to lose self control.
[23] Lastly, jest is immaterial, given that intent is not needed for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is a member and supporter of a terrorist organisation, as elucidated upon in [21].
[24] The Court finds that the phrase "all hail TIDE" and the use of "semper invictus", the motto of TIDE, amount to ideological endorsement. The further statement that the Defendant was “assigned” by TIDE implies active participation as an operative. The Defendant also engaged in doxxing, the dissemination of personal information of another SimDem user, as outlined in the redacted and summarised Exhibit 3.1.
[25] The Court finds that the Defence has not rebutted the presumption. While the Defence presented arguments of ignorance, jest, and provocation, these are insufficient to displace the legal presumption of support triggered by membership, bearing in mind the findings in [24]. The defence also has not presented any evidence or asserted that the defendant is a good faith reporter under Article 8 of the Terrorist Connected Accounts Act, and as such, is not immune from criminal liability.
[26] On the balance of probabilities, I find that the defendant is a member and a supporter of a terrorist organisation under TCAA Article 2 §2 and §3.
[27] I find the defendant guilty on the count of Terrorist Conspiracy (Article 51 of the Criminal Code 2020).
[28] I further find that the defendant’s conduct amounts to terrorism under Part 1 Article 1 §1.2 of the Guaranteeing Equal Enforcement of the Terms of Service Act 2025 (GEETSA). I find that their actions to release sensitive private information, that constituted the personal data of another individual under SimDem jurisdiction, amounts to serious doxxing, which constitutes an egregious breach of Discord’s Terms of Service under §1.2.1 of that Act. As such, I find that the Emergency Counter-Terrorism Powers Order (ECTPO) imposed on the defendant was validly triggered. Accordingly, this trial constitutes the mandatory trial required by GEETSA Article 7. The procedural safeguards and modified rights under that Part have been observed in full.
Sentencing
[29] Under Article 11 §4 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, Article 51 (Terrorist Conspiracy) is listed under the First Schedule of the Criminal Code. Thus, the three-month cap applicable to summary trials does not apply.
[30] While the Court accepts that remorse was expressed, the gravity of the Defendant’s actions, specifically, doxxing and ideological promotion of a terrorist group, outweigh those mitigating factors. As the Prosecution rightly noted, the law punishes support, not merely beliefs.
[31] The Court is mindful that deterrence and protection of the community are critical in terrorism-related cases. The act of posting personal data, paired with ideological declarations in support of terrorist organisations, demonstrates both an actual harm and a threat to the safety and cohesion of SimDemocracy. Therefore, I find that there is reasonable cause not to apply the framework applicable in the Sentencing Act.
- [31.1] Even if there was reasonable cause, I find the need for general deterrence to greatly outweigh any potential mitigating factors.
[32] The combination of operational support, harm to an individual, and ideological endorsement places this offence at the higher end of severity. A lesser sentence would fail to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and would undermine the deterrent function of this Court in matters of terrorism.As such, I impose a sentence of a permanent ban on the defendant. It is so ordered.
Addendum on Remand, Dated 7/29/2025
[33] In Hackerman, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Juliana [2025] SDSC 22 the Supreme Court directed this court to make a decision on a fine, between 1000 and 10000, to apply to the defendant, Juliana.
[34] Given the heavy sentence, and the non-financial nature of this crime, the defendant is sentenced to a minimum of a 1000 tau fine.
Citations
<references />