SD v Von Otto 2020 Crim 4
SD v Von Otto 2020 Crim 4
| Date of judgment | 28th June 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge Mobilfan |
| Charges | 164 charges of Mass Pinging (Article 40 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Guilty of all charges |
| Sentence | 164 day mute (1 day mute per charge) |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | The mens rea (mental element) requirement for mass pinging, i.e. nefarious intent, is not required for D to be found guilty of mass pinging, 4 |
JUDGMENT by Judge Mobilfan
[1]. The court acknowledges, that the defendant has repeatedly pinged individuals and roles, to a total of 164 accounts.
[2]. The court acknowledges, that more offenses may have been committed, however were not included in the evidence.
[3]. Under the Criminal Code Article 40 §1 spam ping must be done without any reasonable or legitimate intent; rather done with nefarious intent.
[4]. The court finds, that rather implies, that it is not explicitly required, however must be considered.
[5]. The court finds, that the prosecution has not managed to proof nefarious intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
[6]. The court finds, that the repeated pinging seen in the prosecutions evidence makes the defendant guilty of the charges presented.
[7]. The court finds that because nefarious intent has not been proven, the maximum punishment for each account of spam ping of a 7 day mute is inappropriate.
[8]. The court sentences the defendant "Von Otto" to a mute of 24 hours for each account of spam ping, summing up to a mute of 164 days. The mute shall start whenever the defense can be subjected to this punishment, earliest in 24 hours.
