SD v xMikee 2020 Crim 1

SD v xMikee 2020 Crim 1

Date of judgment	16th February 2020
Judge	Judge halfcat
Charges	1 charge of Dereliction of Duty (Article 28 of the Criminal Code) 1 charge of Abuse of Power (Article 27 of the Criminal Code) 1 charge of Obstruction of Justice (Article 36 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Not guilty of 1 charge of Dereliction of Duty Guilty of 1 charge of Abuse of Power Guilty of 1 charge of Obstruction of Justice
Sentence	94 day ban (91 days for Abuse of Power and 3 days for Obstruction of Justice) 2 months prohibition of holding the office of Supervisor thereafter
Applicable persuasive precedent	A person can not be convicted of dereliction of duty for neglecting to do an action they had no duty to do, 8 Supervisors are members of the government, 14 Affirmed by In re Mute of BelugaWhaleMan 2021 SDSC 5 When a person unlawfully uses their position of public office to get something they otherwise would not have (regardless of whether obtaining that thing is ordinarily legal), that person commits abuse of power, 15 A person with a public office of great power (e.g. Supervisor) is held to a higher standard for abuse of power cases, 16

Verdict

[1]. The defendant is charged with three separate crimes, therefore I will split the verdict into three parts.

Dereliction of duty

[2]. The argument the prosecution has presented is that the defendant has gathered information and not presented it to their superiors in the SDIA thus committing dereliction of duty. The defence countered by saying neither SDIA Agents nor citizens are required to turn over all information they possess to ICOM.

[3]. As seen in /u/Ivy Cactus’ statement the defendant did not act as an SDIA Agent during their interactions with the informant. Additionally, /u/xMikee claims that their informant was a private informant not connected to the SDIA. This is accepted as fact by the prosecution as they use it as evidence in another charge. The prosecution also states that the private informant did in fact not work for or with the SDIA.

[4]. Many of the screenshots the prosecution has presented as evidence are filled with the defendant providing ICOM members with information that they have gotten from their informant. A case where they refuse to give information directly is when /u/Mobilfan asks the defendant who this informant is and they do not answer with the informants identity. /u/Mobilfan then simply respond with “alright”, reasonably assumed to mean that they accept that as an answer. As we see no more of the conversation this is the most reasonable interpretation.

[5]. As seen in the evidence the defendant privately messaged /u/Mobilfan with some information. By presenting it to their superior /u/Mobilfan the defendant did not commit dereliction of duty. As the defence said, this, at least party, shifts the burden of presenting the evidence to ICOM to their superior.

[6]. The defendant also stated that they believe they shared all relevant information. It is unreasonable to sentence someone for dereliction of duty for not sharing irrelevant information.

[7]. The prosecution brings up that the defendant is trying to make /u/Mobilfan trust their informant and trying to convince them the Legion is a big threat which is irrelevant to this case as it is not a crime.

[8]. An SDIA Agent is not legally obligated to share all information they have, especially when such information is not relevant to their duty. In addition the defendant had a private informant and chose to present information gathered through them on their own volition. Not saying who your private source, unrelated to the SDIA, is does not constitute dereliction of duty, especially when your superior accepts your answer. The defendant also did in fact present, in their own view, all relevant information. As the prosecution says, refusing to relay information to the SDIA is not a crime in of itself; it is only a crime when one's duty is to relay information to the SDIA; and in this case the defendant had no duty to relay this information as it was gathered unrelated to the SDIA from a private informant.

[9]. The court finds the defendant not guilty of Dereliction of Duty.

Abuse of Power

[10]. The argument the prosecution has presented is that the defendant has acquired a private informant using their position as Supervisor thus committing abuse of power.

[11]. Both the prosecution and defence state that the informant did approach the defendant because of their position as Supervisor, which is proven by the fact that this informant has worked for other Supervisors as well as the informant themself stating that they do work for the Supervisors. What differentiates the defendant from the other Supervisors is that they are the one who has accepted the informant, something that the others did not.

[12]. The Constitution explicitly says that Supervisors have no power with very few exceptions. Acquiring and having private informants when such things should be handled by other governmental agencies is not one of those exceptions.

[13]. The evidence confirms multiple times that the defendant was not working as an SDIA Agent in this situation and was using their Supervisor position exclusively to get this informant, who they call a private informant.

[14]. The court interprets Supervisors as members of the government. Needing them to be explicitly defined as members of the government is unreasonable as that would mean no one is a member of government.

[15]. The defense points out that it is legal to have personal informants, although this case is different as the defendant used their position as Supervisor to gain this informant. Therefore it constitutes abuse of power because of them using their governmental position to do an act outside of the authority of that position.

[16]. When considering a sentence for this crime one must take into account which position was used. The Subreddit Supervisor has almost no legal power according to the Constitution, but because of them being the top moderator of the subreddit they have a lot of actual power. Because of the amount of power the Subreddit Supervisor actually has, they have a large responsibility of not using it in any illegal way. The sentencing needs to reflect that a Supervisor abusing their power is more severe than for example a Department of Advertising member as their responsibility to not use their extensive power is much greater.

[17]. The court finds the defendant guilty of Abuse of Power.

Obstruction of Justice

[18]. The argument the prosecution has presented is that the defendant has lied about multiple things during an investigation into them to hinder the investigation thus committing obstruction of justice.

[19]. The prosecution states that the defendant lied by stating that they gave all information they had to the SDIA. In the evidence however we can see that they say two things. One, that they relayed all relevant information. Two, that they did so for an investigation. The defence responds with that for one there is no proof that the defendant hasn’t relayed all information they consider relevant because it is their subjective view of relevant. For two, the defense says that the defendant never stated that the investigation was strictly about their informant. They also add that the SDIA clearly had some investigation into the Legion, for which the defendants informant had information about. The defence lines up with what the defendant actually said, that the SDIA was investigating a situation that the informant had information on, not that they were involved in the actual investigation. This interpretation does not contradict any of the evidence.

[20]. /u/Ivy Cactus states that the the defendant was never assigned to any mission into the informant, magicghost, however as stated above the defendant never claimed they were. Any other mentions of an investigation or mission can not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not referring to an investigation into the Legion unrelated to specifically magicghost.

[21]. The prosecution states that the defendant claimed his relationship with the informant was as an SDIA Agent and that this contradicts that they worked for the Supervisors as well as the fact that /u/Ivy Cactus said the defendant never had permission to interact with magicghost in their role as an SDIA Agent. The prosecution continues saying this proves that the defendant denied the fact that the informant worked for the Supervisors and as seen in the evidence this is a lie. Although the defence counters with saying that the informant only worked for the defendant in the end, this does not explain why the defendant chose to lie and say they worked with the informant as an SDIA Agent.

[22]. One must consider the fact that the above is a relatively minor detail that minimally hindered the investigation. However, lying during an investigation must be taken very seriously.

[23]. The court finds the defendant guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

Sentencing

[24]. The defendant is sentenced to a thirteen week (91 days) ban for Abuse of Power.

[25]. The defendant is sentenced to a three day ban for Obstruction of Justice.

[26]. After the combined ban of 94 days has ended the defendant shall be forbidden from holding the office of Supervisor, commonly known as Subreddit Supervisor, for a period of two months.

[27]. The ban shall start 24 hours from now or sooner if the defendant wishes to.