SD v the sigma squad 2025 Crim 22
SD v the sigma squad 2025 Crim 22
| Date of judgment | 22nd March 2025 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge Ed |
| Charges | 1 charges of Sexual Harassment (Article 54) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 charges of Sexual Harassment |
| Sentence | 12 month ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
JUDGMENT by Judge Ed
Introduction
[1] The defendant was charged with 1 count of Sexual Harassment under Article 54, to which the defendant have pleaded not guilty to.
[2] The burden of proof was on the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed Sexual Harassment as defined in Article 54. This required establishing that:
- The defendant sent or displayed sexually suggestive material to another person.
- This action was unsolicited.
- The material was sent or displayed without the recipient’s consent.
- Alternatively, the defendant acted in a manner that solicited or could be interpreted by a reasonable person as soliciting sexually suggestive activities without the recipient’s prior consent.
Evidence and cross-examination
[3] The prosecution claimed that the accused’s message was sexual, pointing to common internet usage and Urban dictionary definitions that define the phrase as referring to a sexual act. They also claimed that the message was sent without prior consent, with no preceding context that could justify an alternative interpretation. The immediate report by the victim was given as further evidence that the message was unwelcome and caused distress. The defense countered by arguing that the phrase was ambiguous and that criminal liability cannot be based on subjective interpretation. The defense also challenged the reliability of Urban dictionary as a source and contended that intent is an important factor in determining whether the statement was sexual in nature.
[4] The defense argued that the victim’s prior statement suggested a playful exchange, making the accused’s response a wordplay rather than harassment. They claimed the ambiguity of the message introduced reasonable doubt. The prosecution countered that the prior statement had no sexual context, did not grant consent, and did not change the fact that the accused’s message was sexually suggestive and unsolicited. They also emphasized that the law requires intent to send, not intent to be sexual, and no evidence of consent was presented.
[5] The victim was called to testify and stated that there was no prior sexual context in the conversation and that the message was inconsistent with their usual interactions with the accused. They confirmed that they had not consented to receiving sexually suggestive messages and reported it because it caused them undue apprehension and felt sexual in nature.
Court’s findings
[6] The court finds that the phrase used by the accused is widely understood to reference a sexual act, making it sexually suggestive under Article 54. The court also found that no explicit consent was given and that the message was unsolicited. The witness testimony reinforced that there was no prior sexual context nor consent, and the message was perceived as inappropriate.
Verdict
[7] The court finds the defendant guilty of one count of Sexual Harassment under Article 54.The court sentences the accused to a ban of 12 months from all territories of SimDemocracy, with the duration reduced by the time already spent under arrest prior to release. The sentence shall take effect immediately
