SD v dragoncrxst 2025 Crim 138
SD v dragoncrxst [2025] Crim 138
| Date of judgment | 17th March 2026 |
| Judge(s) |
|
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Hmquestionable
Introduction
[1] This case involves the reprehensible actions of Dragoncrxt, (the “Defendant”), against Aero (the “victim”). Around October 2025, after being ordered to pay a judgment and legal fees to the Victim, the Defendant embarked on a targeted campaign of harassment towards the victim. The victim obtained private counsel and consent from the Attorney-General to pursue criminal charges against the Defendant. At the start of the trial, the State took over the prosecution of the case.
[2] This case has lasted some 5 months owing to the various appeals to different judicial bodies which have been stalled repeatedly, owing, in part, to the poor record keeping and judicial reasoning of the aforesaid bodies. This Court is not concerned with the decisions issued by these appellate bodies, as the matter being appealed ended up not being brought up in trial upon remand.
[3] At the end of the trial, I convicted the Defendant on First Degree Harassment. The Defendant pleaded guilty to Indirect Contempt of Court and was convicted before Former Judge Creative (who has since resigned from the Court). I attach Former Judge Creative’s decision at the end of this verdict, and set out my reasoning for the conviction below.
First Degree Harassment
[4] First Degree Harassment had the following elements, at the time the Defendant was charged in October of 2025:
- (a) Caused a person or group of persons to feel undue or unjustifiable apprehension, alarm or distress;
- (b) Had intent or reckless disregard in causing apprehension.
Upon sufficient proof of (a), (b) is presumed.
Evidence
[5] The Prosecution admitted these exhibits, which I shall briefly describe:
Exhibit 1: Images of the Defendant –
- (a) creating a poll entitled “Scam Aero”, with options being “You should not, Even Aero deserves payment sometimes, Stop trying to ragebait this poor kid”
- (b) replying to a message by the treasurer about a forced transfer in payment of a court judgment towards the Victim, which reads “And who the FUCK said I was gonna do that”, and,
- (c) an image of the Defendant sending messages through the bot pluralkit indicating that they would not be paying the court judgment.
Exhibit 2: Image of the Defendant saying “Why is aero still talking”, seemingly to a person who is not the Victim.
Exhibit 3: Image of the Defendant saying “then I’ll kill aero” in response to a message asking “What if your girlfriend is Lucas”.
Exhibit 4 and 5 were excluded for lack of context.
Exhibit 6 contains a reply to a message by the Defendant which reads “Once more, do not piss on your keyboards”. The Defendant then says, in reply to a different message, “Fine I’ll stop pissing aero off”. The italics were added by the Defendant. The Victim then pings the police.
Exhibit 7 contains messages from the Defendant about “cleansing Aero” with an army of followers. The Victim then asks the Defendant to stop.
Exhibit 8 is excluded for lack of context.
Exhibit 9 contains a message by the Defendant which states “Unlike you, keyboard pisser”.
Exhibit 10 contains a message from the Defendant which reads “Hey it’s the keyboard pisser”
Exhibit 11 is an affidavit from the Victim which states that they felt apprehension from some of the aforementioned conduct.
[6] The Defense did not admit any evidence.
Did the Defendant cause a person or group of persons to feel apprehension, alarm or distress?
[7] The central proof for the Prosecution on this matter is the affidavit which the victim admitted, which states that the victim felt apprehension.
[8] Affidavits inherently hold less weight, as the person writing the affidavit did not have to come into Court and be cross-examined by the opposing party, and would ordinarily not serve as sufficient proof to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain matter in the affidavit occurred. However, it is possible for affidavits to serve as the basis of conviction, when the allegations in the affidavit are able to dispel this inherent deficiency, owing to the surrounding corroboratory evidence.
[9] The full text of the affidavit reads as follows:
“Jess (873042586703654973) saying that I was equal to a doxxer among other things such as endrose, the several points where she talked of “cleansing” me as well as asking whether doxxing is okay when it’s me caused me apprehension in addition to calling me a keyboard pisser and variants of it.”
[10] The central allegations advanced in this affidavit are –
- (a) That the Defendant’s actions in calling the Victim a doxxer, endrose, a keyboard pisser (and variants),
- (b) speaking about “cleansing” the Victim, and
- (c) asking whether doxxing the victim is okay
caused the Victim apprehension.
[11] There is sufficient corroborating evidence for the matters listed above, except for the allegations related to doxxing and endrose. However, given the corroborated nature of the rest of the affidavit, I do not find that the lack of evidence to corroborate the doxxing and endrose allegations to be detrimental to the rest of the affidavit. I will hence disregard the doxxing and endrose related allegations and proceed with the rest of the affidavit.
Is the affidavit sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Victim felt apprehension?
[12] It is important to note that the criminal code definition of First Degree Harassment is not concerned with whether a reasonable person would feel apprehension. Instead, it is concerned with the actual fact of whether a victim felt apprehension, and whether that apprehension was undue and unjustifiable.
[13] Based on the affidavit and the corroborating evidence, I find that it is not inherently incredible that a victim would have felt apprehension from comments about pissing and “cleansing”. Words such as “cleansing” have hateful origins which most persons would be aware of, and being repeatedly confronted by allegations that one has urinated on one’s keyboard could result in apprehension on whether one would be met by such allegations again when re-entering the chat.
[14] The standard of proof here requires there to be no reasonable doubt that the Victim experienced apprehension. Given the Victim’s affidavit, the contextual corroboration, the related actions by the Victim within the Exhibits, such as pinging the police in Exhibit 6 and asking the Defendant to stop in exhibit 7, and the finding by this court above, it is sufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Victim felt apprehension from the Defendant’s actions.
Was the apprehension caused undue or unjustifiable?
[15] “Undue” or “Unjustifiable” speech is speech which does not convey any legitimate expression (see SD v g470_ [2025] Crim 113 at [17]). Whether something is legitimate expression or criminal conduct is weighed on a scale, with “legitimate political or religious belief and criminal actions like harassment or doxxing [being] fix[ed] points on this scale”.
[16] Scandalous unproven allegations lie firmly on the side of Criminal Conduct, in this case (see [19]). Allegations of such a nature as keyboard urination do not convey any political or religious belief, and are in fact harmful to the person whom the allegations are made against. Therefore, I find that the apprehension was caused in an undue manner.
Was there intent?
[17] As previously mentioned in [4], upon proof that the Defendant did in fact cause apprehension, intent is presumed. The Defense did not introduce any evidence to rebut this presumption. Instead, they relied on cross-examining the prosecution’s evidence.
[18] This kind of rebuttal is insufficient, because in the eyes of the law, the Prosecution has no need to prove that there was intent at all. That is the purpose of the presumption. It is for the Defense to introduce evidence to the contrary. Given that they did not do so, it is presumed that there was intent.
Guilt
[19] Given that the Prosecution has proven all the elements of the charge, the Defendant is found guilty of First Degree Harassment.
Sentencing
[20] It is unfortunate that nobody provided any arguments for what the primary purpose of sentencing was. I determine that the primary purpose, in this case, is deterrence.
[21] There appear to be three types of sentencing purposes. The first type is elevatory (factors (a) to (d)), the second type would be rehabilitative (e) and the third type would be a restorative sentence (f). Elevatory purposes would tend to have an increase in the sentencing, while the other two types would generally involve a reduction or alternative sentencing.
[22] To my mind, sentences should generally be rehabilitative. SimDemocracy cannot function without members and if we consistently impose long sentences for all crimes, there will be nobody in SimDemocracy to participate.
[23] However, in cases such as this where the conduct is repeated and causes harm to other members, the primary purpose must be elevatory. Given that the victim has been permanently banned from SimDemocracy, it is rather too late to have retribution as the primary purpose of sentencing. Hence, I determine that deterrence and denunciation are the main factors to be considered.
[24] It is also unfortunate that nobody provided any arguments for which band the sentence should lie in! Given that First Degree Harassment is one of two crimes which has a legislated sentencing framework, it would have been great to know what each party thought of the appropriate band.
[25] I determine that a reasonable band for the case is band 4. The victim was greatly affected and the Defendant did not show any signs of stopping her harassive behavior, or demonstrate any remorse. The appropriate sentence is hence 1 year or more.
[26] Given the elevatory primary purpose of sentencing, I sentence the Defendant to a ban of 1 year and 1 month.
Conclusion
[27] In conclusion, I find the Defendant Guilty of First Degree Harassment and impose a sentence of a ban of 1 year and 1 month.
JUDGMENT by Judge Creative
Issued 8 October 2025.
[1] Having analyzed the submissions of both the Prosecution and the Defense, the Court now considers the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the Defendant following their plea of guilty to one (1) charge under Article 21 of the Criminal Code.
[2] The Prosecution seeks a fine of one (1) tau and a mute of three (3) weeks, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense, the Defendant’s deliberate defiance of a lawful order, and the social harm caused by the actions of the defendant in damaging the integrity of our legal system.
[3] The Defense meanwhile recommends to this Court a mute of 1 week arguing that the Defendant was incapable of paying the levied fine, (Thus as the court interprets it the non-compliance with the court order), further, counsel notes that the guilty plea is a mitigating factor in sentencing.
[4] The Court finds that the defendant’s actions were aimed at frustrating lawful enforcement, though financially incapable of paying the fine, the defendant through deliberate action did everything in their power to not comply with the Court order, the guilty plea entered by the defense only mitigates what damages they have done to the administration of justice and our legal system.
[5] The Court sentences the defendant to
- Pay a fine of one (1) tau; and
- Be muted for a period of two (2) weeks.
[6] The opinions and findings expressed here relate solely to the plea of guilty and to this specific charge under Article 21 of the Criminal Code. They do not extend to, nor shall they prejudice, any remaining charge yet to be heard at trial.