SD v Sunbear 2025 Crim 173
SD v Sunbear [2025] Crim 173
| Date of judgment | 4th January 2026 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] The Defendant, Sunbear, is charged with Making a False Report contrary to Criminal Code 2020, Article 22a, on the basis that they “mass summon[ed] SDBI in a situation without any legal merit”.
[2] The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
Summary of Argumentation and Facts
[3] The Prosecution relies on a single exhibit: the Defendant’s ping of SDBI stating “@SDBI this overuse of the word chud pmo and should count as a crime”. The Prosecution submits the “pmo” wording shows mere annoyance and joking context, such that the summon was manifestly without legal merit.
[4] The Defence submits the report was not manifestly without legal merit. They argue repeated disparaging use of “chud” could reasonably be understood as conduct potentially amounting to harassment, spamming, and (depending on understanding/context) possibly hate speech, and further submit that the Defendant lacked sufficient legal knowledge to know the report was manifestly meritless.
[5] After the Defence invited dismissal for no case to answer, the Prosecution replied that the Defendant’s time in SimDemocracy and prior roles provided sufficient legal experience to satisfy the “knew or ought to know” aspect of Article 22a §2. The Defence counsel subsequently left, and the Defendant indicated they would seek representation or otherwise self-represent.
Considerations
[6] This judgment is given at the no case to answer stage under CPA Article 8 §1.5, after the Prosecution has concluded presentation of its case. The Defence may invite dismissal “on the basis that the Prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the Prosecution may reply.
[7] Under CPA Article 8 §1.6.1, if the Court is not satisfied that the Prosecution has proven its case sufficiently to the criminal standard, the Court must find the accused not guilty.
[8] The offence charged is Article 22a. Relevant here, Article 22a §1.2 criminalises: “Mass summon the SDBI … in any way in a situation that is manifestly without legal merit.”.
[9] Article 22a §2 further directs that, when determining whether the person “knew or ought to know” their claim was manifestly without legal merit, the Court must consider whether the person has legal experience and expertise.
[10] As to the first element, I am satisfied the Defendant did summon SDBI by the message pleaded in the complaint: “@SDBI this overuse of the word chud pmo and should count as a crime”. That is capable of satisfying the “mass summon” requirement in Article 22a §1.2.
[11] The central issue is whether the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the summon occurred in a situation “manifestly without legal merit”. The word “manifestly” sets a high threshold: it is not enough that the claim was weak or mistaken; it must be obviously lacking legal merit.
[12] On the face of the Criminal Code, there are offences which—depending on circumstances—could arguably be engaged by repeated disparaging or disruptive messaging. For example, Harassment includes second degree harassment where a person “repeatedly cause[s] a person or group of persons to feel undue or unjustifiable apprehension, alarm, or distress”.
[13] Likewise, Spamming is committed where a person “repeatedly send[s] messages … with the primary purpose of disrupting conversation … or causing annoyance to others” without genuine intent to participate in good faith. Hate speech is defined as upsetting/demeaning/humiliating speech about protected characteristics with intent or recklessness. I make no findings that any of these offences were in fact committed; the point is that these provisions show that the Defendant’s complaint was not, on this limited record, obviously devoid of legal merit.
[14] Accordingly, on the Prosecution case as presented, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the underlying situation was manifestly without legal merit within Article 22a §1.2.
[15] Separately, even if that element were satisfied, Article 22a §2 requires me to consider legal experience/expertise when assessing whether the Defendant “knew or ought to know” the claim was manifestly meritless. Under the CPA, “any evidence either party wishes to use during the trial must be submitted … at the conclusion of the pre-trial”. Here, the Prosecution confirmed there was only one admitted exhibit (the ping/complaint). The later assertions about the Defendant’s roles and experience were not admitted as evidence in the trial sequence, and on this record I cannot safely make findings on the Defendant’s expertise for Article 22a §2.
[15] For those reasons, the Prosecution has not proven its case to the criminal standard at the no case to answer stage.
Verdict
[16] The Defence submission of no case to answer is granted under CPA Article 8 §1.5. Pursuant to CPA Article 8 §1.6.1, the Defendant is found not guilty.
[17] The case is dismissed with prejudice as the case is dismissed after opening statements at trial. It is so ordered.