SD v ppatpat 2025 Crim 48
SD v ppatpat [2025] Crim 48
| Date of judgment | 11th May 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Heinrich |
| Charges | 1 charge of Treason (Article 44 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Not guilty of 1 charge of Treason |
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Heinrich
Intro
[1] The background of this case is that the defendant effected a motion to impeach a Senator. The defendant then assumed the powers and duties of the Speaker of the Senate after self-assessing that the Vice President was inactive in order to fulfill the legal duties that impeachment motions carry. He later did not contest that he did so illegally (Exhibits 1.3 and 1.4).
Considerations
[2] Did the defendant’s actions constitute treason? Article 44 of the Criminal Code defines treason as when one “conspires or attempts to overthrow the government and the constitutional-democratic order of SimDemocracy illegally”. The illegality criterion has been admitted to by the defence. We will, for now, take it as a legal fiction (presumed true, even if it is not necessarily factually correct) that the illegality criterion is met.
[3] The state must then prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant conspired or attempted to both overthrow the government and the constitutional-democratic order of SimDemocracy. We will also take as a legal fiction that removing the assuming the office of Speaker illegally constitutes overthrowing the government, sidestepping the Sorites paradox that arises from asking the question of “how many branches of government / offices within the government make up enough of the government to constitute ‘overthrowing’ it?”.
[4] Likewise, we will take for granted that the defendant’s activities revolving around the impeachment of Senator Lucas constituted conspiracy or attempt.
[5] Finally, we will take as legal fiction that the role of Presiding Officer of the Senate is, in powers, duties, and responsibilities, equivalent to the role of Speaker of the Senate. Should the defendant be found guilty on the basis of these assumptions, we will return to investigate their truthfulness further.
[6] Given our four assumptions, all favourable for the prosecution, there is only one thing left to prove: did the defendant attempt to overthrow the constitutional-democratic order of SimDemocracy?
[7] The defendant justified his assumption of power by noting that the Vice President was, in his eyes, too inactive to fulfill the duties of Speaker. When the Vice President came online, the defendant surrendered his powers in due course.
[8] The defendant’s actions arose from an impeachment motion against the Senator, whom the defendant disliked (Package 4). A reading of his actions as resulting from personal enmity rather than as a plan to overthrow the constitutional-democratic order of SimDemocracy follows naturally.
[9] SD v Catchers [2020] Crim 9 established that “[v]iolating statute and continually trying to ignore the law are actions that constitute ‘undermining the government of SimDemocracy’ for the purposes of treason”, however, undermining does not necessarily constitute overthrowing. “Overthrow” is a much stronger word implying a substantial change in the fundamental structure of governance.
[10] The court will grant all of the facts and beliefs alleged in the prosecution’s closing statement as further legal fictions, save the final explanation. The prosecution then notes the same arguments granted in section (3) of this ruling, and extends this to include “the constitutional-democratic order by extension because these are constitutionally-prescribed positions”. The court rejects this argument. The phrasing “constitutional-democratic order” implies the superiority of the rule of law and a democratic society at a fundamental level. As an analogy: the Constitution of SimDemocracy has changed over the years, including entire repeal and replacements as recently as 2023. These actions are, on a reasonable basis, not treason – despite fatally undermining (and even overthrowing) the existing constitution, the repeal and replacement process was done in accordance with the just rule of law and democratic procedures, and the new constitution was fair and free as well. Reductio ad absurdum, any amendment to the Constitution, or any verdict of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution, would amount to treason (if meeting the other criteria above). These are, in normal circumstances, actions fully compatible with the continuation of a constitutional-democratic order. Even though the illegal usurpation of the de facto Speakership may “chang[e] who the government of SimDemocracy is” (emphasis original), such an action is far below repealing and replacing the entire Constitution in scale. Given that the latter action is not necessarily treason, the former is not necessarily treason either.
[11] This court finds that the most likely sequence of events is the following: the defendant, acting out of enmity, effected an impeachment motion against a Senator; he then saw the inactivity of the Vice President and took the powers of the Speaker for himself. Once the Vice President returned, he relinquished the powers. The last part is key – he was not acting in order to gain power. His conspiracy was not to overthrow the constitutional-democratic order of SimDemocracy but rather to remove a single figure from government. Take another Reductio ad absurdum – is any impeachment vote automatically treason? The court answers no. Personal dislike and distrust in a person may be the foundation for a vote in favour of impeachment without that impeachment being a crime.
Verdict
[12] The court thus finds the defendant Not Guilty of 1 Count of Article 44, Treason.
[13] The court has granted many of the assertions of the prosecution for the purposes of this trial. To avoid setting undue precedent, or establishing facts without due diligence, this verdict does not establish any of the legal fictions accepted in this trial as either true or false – they are simply not necessary to render a proper verdict.
Citations
<references />