SD v darkdabber 2025 Crim 124

SD v darkdabber [2025] Crim 124

Date of judgment	17th August 2025
Judge	Judge ppatpat
Charges	1 charge of Hate Speech (Article 56a of the Criminal Code 2020)
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of Hate Speech (Article 56a of the Criminal Code 2020)
Sentence	6 month ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	“Action” under Article 3 is not limited to a single moment of conduct but is defined by conduct, timeframe, and legal context; particularly whether the defendant had the opportunity to change behaviour post-notice, [5]–[6]

JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat

Introduction

[1] The State of SimDemocracy prosecutes the defendant, darkdabber (740929425666736212), for one count of First-Degree Hate Speech under Article 56a of the Criminal Code 2020. The Criminal Complaint alleges that the defendant listed a racial slur as their pronouns in their Discord profile. The statute makes clear that the use of a slur is sufficient to constitute hate speech per se.

Pre-trial proceedings

[2] The defendant initially filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they had already been charged for the same offence in an earlier proceeding.

[3] The Prosecution alleged that the defendant had been previously arrested for the same conduct, granted a writ of habeas corpus, and then allowed to leave custody. The defendant made no changes to the content of their profile, and the slur remained visible after the initial arrest and judicial notice.

[4] The Defence argued that the slur in question had not been changed between the first and second criminal complaints, and that this thus constituted double jeopardy in violation of Article 3 §2 of the Criminal Code.

[5] The Prosecution responded that the two charges arose from distinct actions: the first concerning the original act of setting the pronouns, and the second concerning the defendant’s decision to retain them following legal intervention and release. The Prosecution further supported the charge with evidence of past racial slur use in other proceedings, arguing this pattern showed a likelihood of reoffending.

Considerations

[6] This court was thus asked to determine:

[6.1] Whether the second charge constituted double jeopardy for the same “action” under Article 3 §2;

[6.2] Whether probable cause existed for the current charge under Article 56a;

[6.3] Whether the defendant was likely to reoffend;

Findings

[7] While the Criminal Code 2020 does not define “action,” its meaning can be inferred from the structure and purpose of Article 3. Article 3 §2 prevents multiple charges arising from a single incident, while Article 3 §4 permits separate charges for distinct criminal actions. This structure necessitates a definition of “action” that goes beyond technical repetition and takes account of:

[7.1] The underlying conduct;

[7.2] The timeframe in which it occurs;

[7.3] The legal context, including whether the accused had an opportunity to remedy the conduct after notice.

[8] In this case, the first “action” was the initial creation of the profile with the slur; the second “action” was the continued publication of the same slur after release and notice. The latter is not merely a continuation, but a fresh act of defiance in a new legal context, and thus chargeable on its own terms.

[9] Therefore, the Court finds that the second charge does not constitute double jeopardy.

[10] It therefore follows that the Court must, and indeed does, deny the motion to dismiss.

[11] Article 56a criminalises the use of slurs without exception: “A person shall always be considered to be submitting hate speech if they use a slur.” The defendant’s profile contained a slur. The statutory threshold is met on the face of the evidence. Accordingly, the court finds probable cause exists.

[12] The court also finds that the defendant is likely to reoffend. Despite prior arrest and clear legal warning, the defendant made no effort to correct their conduct. The slur remained in place, suggesting not oversight but indifference or deliberate refusal to comply. Additionally, the Prosecution presented evidence of the defendant using similar slurs in other proceedings. This pattern of conduct demonstrates a sustained disregard for the norms and laws of the community. The defendant was thus ordered to be detained throughout the trial.

Verdict

[13] The defendant has entered a plea of guilty under a written plea deal agreed upon by both parties. In exchange for the plea, the State recommends a sentence of a 6 month ban from SimDemocracy and its associated territories.

[14] The statutory sentencing range for a first-degree hate speech offence under Article 56a is a mute or a ban of a duration above one month. The proposed sentence falls well within that range and is not grossly disproportionate given the conduct, the refusal to comply post-warning, and the risk of reoffending.

[15] Accordingly, the court accepts the plea agreement and imposes the agreed sentence.

[16] The Defendant, darkdabber (740929425666736212), is hereby found guilty of one count of Hate Speech under Article 56a of the Criminal Code 2020.

[17] The sentence of the court is a six month ban from SimDemocracy and all associated territories, effective immediately. It is so ordered.