SD v Tracy Walker 2025 Crim 107

SD v Tracy Walker [2025] Crim 107

Date of judgment	29th July 2025
Judge	Judge ppatpat
Charges	1 charge of Doxxing (Article 55a of the Criminal Code 2020)
Verdict	Dismissed without prejudice
Sentence
Applicable persuasive precedent	Self-redacted evidence holds evidentiary weight only where the evidence is not redacted, the submitting party has to comply with procedural requirements under the Courtroom Procedures Act; redactions must be legally justified and not used to bypass evidentiary scrutiny, [6] The burden of establishing the admissibility of evidence lies with the party submitting it; failure to provide supporting affidavits or statutory authority renders the material equivalent to unsubstantiated allegation, [6]

JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat

Introduction

[1] The State of SimDemocracy has charged the defendant, Tracy Walker, with one count of Aggravated Doxxing under Article 55a §2 of the Criminal Code 2020. The Prosecution alleges that the defendant publicly disclosed a citizen's personal information and transmitted a facial image of said citizen to the Attorney General, all with malicious intent.

[2] The Defence submitted a motion to dismiss the charge at the pretrial stage, citing the inadmissibility of evidence, lack of supporting affidavits, and the failure of the Prosecution to meet the evidentiary standard required to establish a prima facie case.

[3] The Prosecution submitted that the conduct amounts to aggravated doxxing under Article 55a §2, and requested a permanent ban pursuant to Article 55a §7.

Considerations

[4] The Court notes that Article 3 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 governs the admissibility of redacted evidence.

[5] The Prosecution submitted Exhibits 2 and 3 in a redacted form, but failed to invoke or comply with Article 3. There is no indication that the redactions were approved or justified under any statutory provision. No affidavit, victim statement, or alternative verification was provided.

[6] As such, Exhibits 2 and 3 are legally invalid redactions, made not in accordance with Article 3. Their redacted form, unsupported by legal justification, renders them functionally equivalent to unverified allegations. The Court is not obliged to take prosecutorial assertion as fact.

[7] Exhibit 1, while offensive, does not disclose any personal data and cannot establish the actus reus of doxxing. Without the admissible evidence in Exhibits 2 and 3, the Prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case under Article 55a §2.

Verdict

[8] The Court finds that the Prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof required to proceed to trial.

[9] The motion to dismiss is therefore granted.

[10] The charge of Aggravated Doxxing under Article 55a §2 is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The State may refile the charge if and when it is able to present admissible, verified evidence compliant with the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025. It is so ordered.

Citations

<references />