SD v Mythrows 2020 Crim 7
SD v Mythrows 2020 Crim 7
| Date of judgment | 9th August 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge Creative |
| Charges | 1 charge of Harassment (Article 63 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charge of Harassment |
| Sentence | 6 month ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Something is “long-term” when it happens consistently over a long period of time, 4 |
JUDGMENT by Judge Creative
[1]. The court established that the evidence presented was in a period of two months. With the evidence submitted showing only two different days.
[2]. The court established there were two different days were actions that could be taken as harassment from the defence were acted upon.
[3]. The court acknowledges that there is no single definition for long term and instead is more case to case due to the nature of the rest of the definition of harassment.
[4]. The court finds the defence right in their statement of “The term "long-term" means something that happened over a long period of time. However, in most use cases, something that happens long-term consistently happens over a long period of time. For example, if someone has been unemployed for the long-term, they have been consistently unemployed for a long period of time.”
[5]. The court acknowledges that the messages portrayed are disturbing in their content as they blame the supposed victim of a third party attempted to commit suicide a serious mental health problem that should not be taken lightly. Additionally, the other messages are threatening harm to the supposed victim with one stating “I want to tie fakereal to a post break all his fingers off and stick them in every orifice of his then douse him on gasoline and light him on fire” and then followed by the disturbing comment of “then make his parents drink his melted skin” these comments are clearly disturbing even in a joke setting as they propose bodily harm to the victim and deal with a serious mental health problem.
[6]. The court established that the two different instances are to count as one count of harassment due to the fact they are targeting the same person on the same context that was the overall prosecution of wolf due to wolfgate.
[7]. The court finds that the precedent set by SD v Dickhead68 2019 Crim 8 is to not be applicable here due to the judgment stating that the 71 hours was not universally applicable
[8]. The court finds that due to the content of the messages and their disturbing and threatening behaviour the messages could be taken as harassment following the definition of harassment although due to the evidence submitted they show what could be considered harassment over a period of two days, but due to their disturbing and threatening content a period of two days is enough to affect the supposed victim.
[9]. The court establishes that the 48 hour period is not to be universal as this is a unique case due to the content of the messages.
[10]. The court finds the defendant guilty of the accusations
[11]. The court finds the recommended sentence of one year is excessive
[12]. The court sentences the defendant to a 6-month ban
