SD v Tsarevichalexi 2025 Crim 127
SD v Tsarevichalexi [2025] Crim 127
| Date of judgment | 16th September 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Ed |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict | Guilty on all charges |
| Sentence | 48 months and 7 day ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
A guilty plea limits sentencing to the admitted charges and aggravating factors alleged within them, [5] |
JUDGMENT by Judge Ed
Introduction
[1] The state has brought charges against the defendant consisting of one count of Hate Speech, two counts of Obscene Material, one count of Sexual Harassment, and one count of Spamming. These alleged acts occurred between January 3 and February 25, 2025. Following the final series of incidents, the defendant was banned under the CTSA. The defendant was then allegedly mistakenly unbanned. The CTSA was then repealed by the GEETSA, rendering the ban unenforceable and leaving the state to pursue the present charges.
[2] The defense entered a plea of guilty on all counts which the court accepted then proceeded to mitigation.
Summary of Charges
[3] The court will begin by describing the basis for each charge.
- [3.1] The count of Hate Speech is based on the defendant using a racial slur while in the holding cell channel.
- [3.2] The first count of Obscene Material charge was based on a message by the defendant with an ASCII depicting sexual acts. The second count was based on another message description the defendant engaging in a sexual acts in their 7th grade spanish class.
- [3.3] The count of Sexual Harassment is based on a message from the defendant directed at another user describing an intent to use their profile picture for a gooning.
- [3.4] The Spamming charge is based on the defendant’s repeated flood of nonsensical messages in the holding cell channel.
Arguments on Mitigation
[4] The state recommended a permanent ban pointing to the continuation of offending while in holding after arrest and after being initially banned, and that the victim of the sexual harassment was a minor, which both constitute aggravating factors.
[5] The court notes that neither the complaint nor the initial charge presentation establish that the alleged victim of the sexual harassment was a minor, and that the defense pleaded guilty only to sexual harassment. Acordingly, there is no basis to apply the mandatory permanent ban provided for child sexual harassment under §4 of Article 57 as the defense only plead guilty to sexual harassment without the minor aggravating element.
[6] The defense submitted that the defendant had already served a CTSA ban and that the alleged incidents were sporadic rather than part of a sustained pattern.
Sentencing
[7] Hate Speech under Article 56a carries a sentence of a mute or ban for a duration above one month. The court finds that a sentence of a 3 months ban to be appropriate for the severity of the offense.
[8] Obscene Materials under Article 59 carries a minimum sentence of a 1 week mute or ban. The court imposes a sentence of a 3 months ban for the first count, and a 2 month ban for the second count.
[9] Sexual Harassment under Article 57 carries a minimum ban of 1 year. The court imposes a 40 month ban.
[10] Spamming under Article 50 carries a sentence of a mute or ban between six hours and one year, with the maximum extended if the accused joined specifically to spam. The court imposes a 7 day ban in line with Band 2 of the spamming sentencing framework within the Sentencing Act.
Verdict
[11] The court finds the defendant guilty on all counts and sentences them to a combined total ban of 48 months and 7 days.
[12] All decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court.