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.