SD v nolan0027 2026 Crim 5
SD v nolan0027 [2026] Crim 5
| Date of judgment | 17th March 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence |
To be served after ongoing ban, but before permanent mute:
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] The State brings two counts of hate speech under Article 56a of the Criminal Code 2020 against nolan0027 (936848029179326474) for use of slurs. The previously assigned judge found the accused guilty of all counts and asked for submissions on sentencing recommendations, but was recused for delays before they published a verdict. Much like SD v nein_30660 [2026] Crim 175, I will neither second guess that decision nor attempt to retroactively attach an explanation to it. This judgment will only focus on the sentencing aspect.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
[2] The prosecution presented that the convict showed repetition by sending such on separate days and that at least one of the messages unambiguously contained a full slur. In the criminal complaint, they asked for an 18 month ban for both counts. By statute, the sentences available for hate speech shall be a mute or ban of a duration above one (1) month.
[3] The defense countered that the conduct was a few short messages and not prolonged harassment, and asked for a moderate and proportionate sentence.
[4] I take notice of previous instances of hate speech from the convict in SD v nolan0027 [2025] Crim 27 and Crim 174 (both of which I personally presided over). Strictly speaking, Crim 174 was for violating the Terms of Service rather than Article 56a, but the underlying conduct was hate speech nonetheless. They are currently serving a two year ban and a permanent mute thereafter.
Relevant statutory and case law
[5] I am not intentionally citing only my own judgments, but SD v mayuuii [2025] Crim 84 contains a comprehensive look at hate speech sentencing up to that point; I refer readers to that case as if included here while I evaluate subsequent statutory and case law. At the time, sentences for hate speech mostly fell between one month and one year. The approximately eight cases since then involving hate speech have mostly resulted in bans of three to six months. Often, the six month bans are accompanied with the judge noting a distinct lack of mitigating circumstances.
- [5.1] A notable exception is SD v christopher_bizarre [2026] Crim 4 that resulted in a six month ban for one charge and a permanent ban for the other. However, unlike SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) [2023] Crim 1, neither sentence exceeded the prosecution's recommendation The conduct in SD v christopher_bizarre was vastly more severe than use of a slur, and more comparable to SD v nolan0027 [2025] Crim 174.
Sentencing considerations
[6] In asking for an 18 month ban, the prosecution flatly exceeds that which has been established in case law for use of slurs. The defense's argument about the limited number of messages involved would point towards the typical three to six month ban. The lack of remorse indicates an initial sentence of a six month ban would be appropriate, but now the convict's prior criminal history must be considered.
[7] As the convict is already banned/muted permanently, this is a belt-and-suspenders prosecution and several of the purposes of punishment under Article 2 of the Sentencing Act are hardly applicable: retributive justice, individual deterrence, incapacitation, reparation, etc. At this point, rehabilitation is unlikely. This leaves general deterrence and denunciation; though if the several dozen existing hate speech cases have not shown the public such, it is doubtful this case would make a difference. Thus, the need for public protection against the convict is minimal. Nevertheless, even if this sentence is unlikely to have any effect, that is not a reason for mercy.
[8] Based on the evidence here and prior convictions, the charges arise out of the different conversations and days. The court determines this ought to count as repeated offenses that merit escalating sentences. The sentence for the first charge is elevated to a ban of nine months, and the sentence for the second to a ban of one year.
[9] Having a ban consecutively follow a permanent mute is senseless, as it would mean the ban would never be served. As such, the sentence here will (in effect) be an extension of the convict's ongoing two year ban and served before the start of their permanent mute.
[10] The convict's ongoing ban is extended by a total of one year and nine months. Based on likely having been arrested since their crime in Crim 174 in December 2025, rough math indicates that they are banned until approximately September 2029.