State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Imadearedditaccount5 (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 20
State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Imadearedditaccount5 (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 20
| Date of judgment | 10th November 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice SeaOtter Justice TheMainCharacter Acting Justice Kangawolf |
| Held | The court of first instance correctly applied relevant law. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | A conviction or acquittal delivered upon misapplication of the law cannot be considered valid, and therefore a reinterpretation of law does not violate double jeopardy 4 |
==
==
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice TheMainCharacter
(with Chief Justice SeaOtter and Acting Justice Kangawolf agreeing)
Introduction
1. /u/Imadearedditaccount5 was charged with Misuse of Permissions for sending an unofficial message in #official-announcements. The court of first instance found the accused not guilty, in SD v /u/Imadearedditaccount5 (2020) Crim 12\.
2. The appellant is seeking to have the ruling overturned on grounds of misinterpretation of law, stating that the verdicts rendered by the courts of first instance in SD v Imadearedditaccount5 2020 Crim 12 and SD v BTernaryTau 2020 Crim 11 are in conflict. Both cases concern whether or not an individual who had authority to make official announcements in a channel designated for such announcements posted messages that fell outside the scope of an official announcement.
Clarification on double jeopardy
3. This court must first consider whether the appeal violates the right against double jeopardy as established in article 18 §6. of the constitution which states that legal entities may not be tried again on the same or similar charges and on the same facts following a valid acquittal or conviction.
4. The court finds that an acquittal or conviction delivered upon misapplication of the law cannot be considered valid. Therefore it is within the purview of this court to provide a binding interpretation on any questions of law brought to its attention in the form of an appeal.
5. Further, the court believes finding of fact in many cases to be the role of lower courts.
What is an official announcement?
6. The court shall affirm the definition of an official announcement set out in BTernaryTau, “an announcement that is related to the government or otherwise important to the community”.
6.1. Further, the court accepts the definition for an announcement put forward by the petitioner, “a message that in of itself conveys important information, or one that helps to contextualize or build on another announcement”
7. Article 1 §1.1. of the Fifth Discord Act grants certain government officials the ability to speak "in an official announcements channel".
7.1. The court affirms the precedent set in BTernaryTau, that the statute restricts the use of the channel to conveying only official announcements.
7.1.1. The petitioner agrees with this interpretation stating that it was their intention as the author of Fifth Discord Act. The court, although agreeing with the interpretation, does not consider this argument valid.
7.1.2. Legislative intent, while a valid source of judicial interpretation, must reflect the intentions of the legislative body enacting the law. An author of a bill acting as petitioner to this court is too biased to provide an authoritative source of intent.
8. A significant portion of the petition as well as the response is dedicated to arguments on whether the message in question in Imadearedditaccount5 fit the definition for "official announcement". A ruling on this question would amount to a finding of fact, and is outside the purview of this court.
8.1. This court will however look towards the definitions and other interpretations used in Imadearedditaccount5 to determine whether the law was misinterpreted.
Did Imadearedditaccount5 misapply the law regarding official announcements 9. In finding that the message was a relevant announcement, former Justice Owl in Imadearedditaccount5 used the definition for “official announcement” used in BTernaryTau. Further, he said that although it did not fit the definition on its own merit, “when looking at the message in context with other messages in the channel”, it was relevant.
9.1. As this court has affirmed the definition used in BTernaryTau in 6, we of course find that the law was correctly applied here.
9.2. In defining an “announcement” in 6.1. this court held that a message that “helps to contextualize or build on another announcement” was an announcement in its own right. This is for all intents and purposes the same ruling in Imadearedditaccount5.
Verdict
10. The court holds that Imadearedditaccount5 did not misinterpret the relevant law and upholds its verdict.
