SD v dragoncrxst 2025 Crim 168

SD v dragoncrxst [2025] Crim 168

Date of judgment	10th December 2025
Judge	Judge Ferris
Charges	1 count of Sexual Harassment
Verdict	Guilty on all charges
Sentence	Ban of 14 months
Applicable persuasive precedent	Repeated offending requires convictions to be an aggravating factor [6] Crimes and elements of the crime do not constitute aggravating factors [8] Being an active member of the community does not lessen the harm caused and hence does not lessen the sentence [11]

JUDGMENT by Judge Ferris

Summary of Facts

[1] The defendant made sexually inappropriate comments towards another member of SimDemocracy.

[2] The statements in question are “Thyme can confirm that Tripod’s big ol booty jiggled for minutes at a time”, “You know how Tripod has a big fat butt [...] Tripod has like not just cake not just buns not even just cake and buns. He got the bread and the cookies and the muffins and shit too”, “Tripod got a whole bakery back there 🗣️”

[3] The defendant pleaded guilty.

Sentencing

[4] The prosecution alleges the following aggravating factors:

[4.1] The defendant showed a pattern of reoffending by sending the messages in [2] in a short time span.

[4.2] The defendant stating “I can say anything I want”, “I’m gonna break the law” shows intent and disregard for the law

[4.3] The targeted and public nature of the crime as well as the nature of sexual harassment demonstrating high social harm.

[4.4] As well as lack of remorse and harm to the victim, as well as social harm

[4.5] The vulnerability of the victim and being an egregious ToS violation.

[4.6] High intensity of the violation

[5] The defense alleges the following mitigating factors:

[5.1] The defendant showed remorse and stopped after being asked to stop

[5.2] Has been an active member of the community

[5.3]The messages in [4.2] happened after they sent the messages and before the message leading to their arrest

[6] A repeat offender is defined as “A person who has been con-victed of a crime more than once” (See Black’s Law dictionary) so naturally for something to be a repeat offense there must have been a prior conviction, however that is not the case. Hence [4.1] is rejected.

[7] Though [4.2] does not show targeted intent, it does show disregard for the law but could also be read as the defendant thinking that their actions before the message might be criminal in nature. Since the prosecution has been unable to prove that it was the interpretation they claim beyond a reasonable doubt, [4.2] is rejected.

[8] While SD v tywearingatie [2025] Crim 146 [50] establishes that increasing social harm by way of publicising the offending content is an aggravating factor, simply sending the message is a part of the crime itself. Given that aggravating factors are factors in the surrounding context that raise the severity of the crime; The crime and its components cannot serve as aggravating factors of itself. Hence [4.3] is rejected.

[9] Though lack of remorse is an aggravating factor, the evidence presented supporting [5.1] forces the court to reject it.

[10] While harm to the victim is also an aggravating factor, a closer reading of the statute shows that it necessitates the existence of a victim or a recipient for the offending content. Applying the principle in [8] harm to the victim is rejected as an aggravating factor.

[11] The court fails to see why contributing to the community would lessen the harm caused due to this crime and hence [5.2] is rejected,

[12] Given the guilty plea, stopping when asked and the aggravating factors presented, I sentence the defendant to a ban of 14 months.

Citations

<references />