View source for Dickhead68 (Appellant) v NovaSM (Respondent) 2019 SDCA 1

[[Category:Case Law|2019-07-17]] [[Category:Court of Appeal Cases|2019-07-17]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2019|2019-07-17]]
= Dickhead68 (Appellant) v NovaSM (Respondent) 2019 SDCA 1=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 17th July 2019
|-
| Justices
| Judge Danyo Judge Rudy2033 Judge BaneofBacon
|-
| Held
| Setting new precedent does not amount to retroactive punishment
|-
| Ruling
| 3-0
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| SimDemocracy is a common law jurisdiction, 2 The principle that repeated offences warrants greater sentencing is justified and reasonable 3
|}
== MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Danyo==

''(with Judges /u/Rudy2033 and /u/BaneofBacon agreeing)''

'''[1].''' I agree with my fellow judges in rejecting this appeal and re-affirming the sentence by Judge /u/lolcheapboosts.

'''[2].''' Firstly, the argument that no precedent has been set previously and therefore this amounted to being a retroactive punishment was not convincing and hollow. r/SimDemocracy is a common law jurisdiction where the judiciary follows the amendments, laws passed by the Senate, and previous case law (also known as precedent). Where there is no precedent, one must be set in a case of first impression, which happens to be the case Judge /u/lolcheapboosts presided over. No new law has been created. All that has happened is the case has clarified the harassment clause under the CSA. It is the role of the judiciary to set precedent and the respondent in question has fulfilled their role.

'''[3].''' The argument of “sudden death penalty” - that the penalty in question was unduly harsh has also been rejected. Judge /u/lolcheapboosts has reasonable belief, following the evidence presented before him in the case, that dickhead knew what he was doing was wrong and kept doing so regardless. While malicious intent has been ruled out, the principle that repeated offences warrants greater sentencing is entirely justified and reasonable.

'''[4].''' The final argument that the precedent in question has been poorly considered has also been rejected. The case of journalists questioning the President is entirely different from the case that Judge /u/lolcheapboosts was presiding over which saw a user repeatedly harassing an individual by pinging them not with useful public discourse but by public attacks on their character. Precedent isn't a blanket cheque for sentencing for future cases. Every case has to be dealt by a case by case basis. Judges have to also consider other amendments and Acts of Senate when dealing with other cases. A case involving a journalist would warrant other considerations, including possible tests, amendments or requirements on the precedent currently set. There is reasonable justification to uphold the general definition of harassment as set forth by Judge /u/lolcheapboosts.


==Citations==
<references />