Case Overview

• Case Submitted: Monday, 12th February 2024 22:51
• Case Status: Ruled on by a Court
• Assigned Court: District Court


• Date Scheduled: Friday, 16th February 2024
• Time Scheduled: 10:00

Case Information

Explain what happened, and what laws or protocols that have been breached?
We have a clear situation of racist slurs being thrown and not for the first time. The MP of Liverpool, Riverside is known for his questionable sense of humour but some limits should not be exceeded. I don't believe in a settlement for this case, we should be looking into a Court session due to the gravity and I expect the Court to take the appropriate measures.

---

Submitted Evidence

Closing Information

Case Digest
In the case of Lockheed- v. Aturixi under docket number MC-001 (DC-02), the Court considers as follows.

By being represented by a barrister, partaking in a settlement and above all by appearing in Court, the Court holds that the defendant has waived personal jurisdiction defence. From aforementioned conduct can reasonably be deduced that the defendant intended to defend the case on the merits.

The Court also holds that it has subject matter jurisdiction, since the defence has not filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, before engaging in responsive pleading.

The Court therefore concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

The prosecutor has based his charges on the Anti Bullying Policy, as established by the Deputy Prime Minister on January 16th of 2024, published and accessible on the Habbo United Kingdom website. The Court perceives the Anti Bullying Policy to be a document explaining the policy of His Majesty’s Cabinet on how to address and deal with bullying and it sets out a strategy for the government as to how this issue can be dealt with. The Court is of the opinion that this policy document cannot be regarded as a binding legal rule for all citizens, in the sense that it does not invoke a legal obligation which could lead to criminal prosecution and subsequent conviction upon breaching it. The Court has chosen to not base its decision on a breach of ius cogens, with the following evidence consideration in mind.

Based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant, on the 12th of February 2024, within Parliament chambers, said the following: ‘Ant maybe change ur skin color’ and ‘The things will change’. The prosecutor has argued that such comments cannot be seen in a different light than them being of a bigoted and racist nature. The Court holds a different view and thereto considers the following.

The conversation as covered by the duly presented evidence is by no means extensive and the Court finds it highly likely that the conversation had started before the messages as shown by exhibit A were sent. This makes it difficult to reconstruct what precisely occurred and under which circumstances. It is the interpretation of the Court that the defendant, when sending the messages cited above, was responding to the message sent by Lockheed- in which he said ‘My salary here doesn’t even cover 2% of what I make’. This gives the comments made by the defendant a different context and it is, based on the evidence, not possible to exclude the possibility that the defendant, when sending these messages, was referring to socioeconomic inequality and hardship that people in minority communities still face to this day. The prosecutor has failed to present evidence which beyond any reasonable doubt could prove that the defendant intended to convey bigoted and/or racist statements.

The Court therefore finds the defendant not guilty of the charge as brought forward by the prosecutor.

---

Final Verdict
Guilty