SD v Yt7iju 2025 Crim 102
SD v Yt7iju [2025] Crim 102
| Date of judgment | 12th July 2025 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Charges | 1 charge of Doxxing (Article 55a of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Doxxing (Article 55a of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Sentence | A permanent ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] The Defendant, Yt7ijtu (ID: 1376582742283915304), was charged with one count of Doxxing under Article 55a of the Criminal Code 2020.
[2] The Prosecution submitted that on or about 7 July 2025, the Defendant posted a message in the public “#Border” channel on the SimDemocracy Discord server containing racial and homophobic slurs directed at three named users, flor, hazzy, and medmouse, as well as personally identifiable information (PII) regarding one of them. This message was subsequently deleted, but preserved via archival bots.
[3] The Defence entered a guilty plea.
[4] The Prosecution submitted that the conduct amounts to aggravated doxxing under Article 55a §2, and requested a permanent ban pursuant to Article 55a §7.
Sentencing Considerations
[5] Under Article 55a §2 of the Criminal Code 2020, aggravated doxxing is established when a doxxing act is committed with malicious intent. The law provides that:
“A person who discloses personal data without lawful basis is rebuttably presumed to have done so with malicious intent.”
This presumption was triggered in this case.
[6] As established in Article 2 §3 of the Criminal Code, a rebuttable presumption may be displaced on the balance of probabilities. I do not find that the Defence has rebutted this presumption. Therefore, the Court must proceed on the basis that malicious intent is legally presumed.
[7] Accordingly, the conduct qualifies as aggravated doxxing under Article 55a §2. The sentences available are a ban of permanent duration.
[8] In applying the Sentencing Act, I am bound by Article 1 §1 to follow sentencing frameworks unless there is reasonable cause not to. I do not find reasonable cause not to.
[9] No mitigating factors were raised under Article 3. The Defence pled guilty but offered neither apology nor explanation. The Defendant declined to contest the aggravating factors.
[10] I note that under Article 3 §1(a) of the Sentencing Act, a guilty plea is considered a mitigating factor, as it may indicate remorse or cooperation with the administration of justice. The Defendant in this case did indeed enter a guilty plea and declined to contest the charges. This is ordinarily a relevant and valid consideration in favour of a reduced sentence.
[11] However, persuasive precedent from SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2 is instructive in its limited scope of applicability. In that case, the defendant pled guilty to a series of extremely serious charges including treason, election tampering, and sexual harassment of a minor. Despite the severity of those offences, a 10-year ban was imposed rather than a permanent one, with the court noting:
“The only reason these crimes... do not merit a lifetime ban... is because /u/we-are-all_Uno had the common sense to plead guilty. [...] a ten-year ban is as good as a lifetime ban.” (SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2 [2])
[12] However, that judgment is not applicable in this instance. The charge of aggravated doxxing under Article 55a §2 of the Criminal Code 2020 carries only one lawful sentence: a permanent ban, per §7 of the same Article. Unlike in SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2, where the statute allowed judicial discretion to impose a lengthy but non-permanent sentence, this Court has no such discretion. The Criminal Code provides no range of penalties here, only a single sentence type.
[13] As such, it must be stressed that where a statute sets out only a permanent ban as the available sentence, that constitutes both the minimum and the maximum. I have no judicial authority to reduce a statutorily fixed sentence, even in the presence of mitigation, unless expressly allowed under the law, which it is not in this case.
[14] Therefore, while the guilty plea is duly noted, and would carry significant weight in other contexts, I am constrained by statute from imposing any sentence other than a permanent ban.
Verdict
[15] I find the Defendant guilty of aggravated doxxing under Article 55a §2 of the Criminal Code 2020.
[16] The Defendant, Yt7ijtu, is hereby permanently banned from the SimDemocracy community, effective immediately from the date of this judgment. It is so ordered.
Citations
<references />