View source for In re TheReak Contempt of Court 2023 SDSC 2

[[Category:Case Law|2023-02-22]] [[Category:Supreme Court Cases|2023-02-22]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2023|2023-02-22]]
= In re TheReak Contempt of Court 2023 SDSC 2=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Alternate citation
! ''In re TheReak Contempt of Court'' 2023 SDSC II
|-
| Date of judgment
| 22nd February 2023
|-
| Justices
| Justice Literal
|-
| Held
| Judgment of the Chief Justice in holding the appellant in contempt of court affirmed.
|-
| Ruling
| 1-0
|-
| Applicable precedent
| A person need not necessarily be a party to judicial proceedings to be held in contempt of court. 4 The courts’ or government’s failure to remove court access is not a defense to contempt of court. 5 Judges and justices do not have a duty to determine whether another crime is more applicable before holding someone in contempt of court. 6
|}
== MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Literal==
== Introduction ==

'''[1].''' This case is an appeal of a contempt of court sentencing handed down to the appellant by Chief Justice halfcat. The appellant claims that they were unlawfully held in contempt of court.
== Facts ==

'''[2].''' The undisputed facts are as follows: The appellant was held in contempt and muted for posting an off-topic and “arguably NSFW” gif in the #supreme-court channel. The judicial proceedings involving the appellant had ended but their access to the channel had not been removed.
== Discussion ==

'''[3].''' The issue in this appeal boils down to whether a person must be involved in court proceedings in order to be held in contempt of court.

'''[4].''' The Criminal Code defines direct contempt of court as “acting in a manner that disrupts judicial proceedings or prejudices the administration of justice.” I need not decide what constitutes acting in such a manner in this case. Importantly, I see no reason to construe this definition to limit who may be held in contempt of court to only those who are parties to ongoing proceedings.

'''[5].''' The appellant argues that it is the court’s responsibility to remove people’s access to courtroom channels when proceedings involving them have ended. I am not convinced by this argument. Any possible negligence by the court in ensuring the removal of court access in a timely fashion is immaterial to the crime of contempt of court. Opportunism is not a valid defense to committing contempt of court. Similarly, there is no reason that any negligence on the part of the court would put the appellant’s disruptive messages under the protection of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech cannot extend so far as to protect disruption of judicial proceedings.

'''[6].''' Additionally, it is not up to this court to decide whether the gif posted by the appellant was or was not NSFW. Chief Justice halfcat was under no legal duty to wait to see if the government would press charges against the appellant for posting the gif. The Chief Justice felt that what the appellant posted constituted contempt of court, and he had broad discretion to make that judgment.
== Conclusion ==

'''[7].''' Accordingly, TheReak’s conviction for contempt of court is hereby affirmed.



==Citations==
<references />