IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
VERDICT
Chancellor Smallfries writes this majority opinion, joined by High Chancellor Juniperfig.
Appellant 12700k appeals his conviction of the court offense of Contempt of Court. During a Criminal Proceeding in which he was originally a party, the trial judge there asked for 12700k's pleading, which was not produced. See Crown v. Stratton LLC, Case 11 (Mag. Ct. 2025). As a result, the trial judge found 12700k guilty of Contempt of Court and fined him £500. 12700k initiated this action, appealing.
In single issue, 12700k alleges that his failure to provide a timely plea in the case was due to his rational belief that he was not obligated to do so. This is because, he alleges, he and the Government had come to an agreement that would remove him from the Government's proceedings, and he would not allege him liable for any crime in this matter.
-=-
All criminal offenses must be accompanied by a guilty mind and a guilty action. See A.P. 01-006 § 5(1). A guilty mind can be found either through general or specific intent. Id. General intent is defined as a player's intention to undertake the "physical act" that creates the crime in question. Id. Specific intent is defined as a player's intent for the result of the crime in question to occur. Id.
Here, 12700k alleges that he did not possess the requisite intent to commit a crime, and thus cannot be guilty of such a crime. Because he believed, in good faith, that he should not be accused of a crime and therefore had no obligation to enter a pleading, he should not have been punished for failing to do so. We disagree.
The guilty act in this case was ignoring the legal and mandatory call of a trial judge to perform a task assigned to him. The trial judge acted reasonably and legally, and did not abuse their authority or discretion. The trial judge set a reasonable time for 12700k to act, and made clear what was expected of him. 12700k does not dispute any of the above.
No person can invade the mind of another and determine their true intent. However, in some cases, we can reasonably infer intent through the actions themselves. In this case, 12700k was aware, or should have been aware, that he had been directed by the trial judge to enter a pleading. It is the responsibility of the accused (and their counsel, if they have one) to be appraised of ongoing proceedings in a case. The burden is low, and it is as simple as opening the forums every day or so and seeing if a new notification appears.
Here, circumstantial evidence weighs just as authoritatively as direct evidence. It is clear that either 12700k saw that he was directed by the trial judge to produce the pleading and did not, or did not attempt to apprise himself of the on-going criminal proceedings he had previously declared himself present for. In either case, the failure of 12700k to obey a rightful and just order from a trial judge would be seen by a reasonable player as disrespectful to the trial judge and their court.
As a matter of law, the ruling by the trial judge in this case is without error. When an individual is ordered to appear, produce a document or statement, or otherwise given a lawful and good-faith order by a judicial officer, they are required to obey it. In this instance, 12700k should have entered a plea of not guilty immediately and offered later evidence of his agreement. He could also have opened a ticket with the Government to ask the court to drop his charges officially (in a ticket provided, 12700k was told that the Crown would do so, but they did not at this point). Finally, he could have asked the trial court for an extension pending the Government dropping his charges.
No matter what, when a judicial officer gives a reasonable, valid, and legal order in the pursuit of their official duties, the individual or party is obligated to respect the order at all junctions. An order from the court is not a suggestion where a response is given based on circumstance or whimsy, but a binding order that must be fulfilled. 12700k's failure to respect this order warranted a Contempt of Court charge, and the trial judge did not err in convicting 12700k or abuse their discretion in the amount fined.
-=-
However, this is not the end of our analysis. As the name of our court may suggest, we are not just a court of Law, but a court of Equity. The courts are not a mechanical, unfeeling, uncaring entity that churns black letter law into punishments blind to the realities of human society. Especially in these early moments of our Kingdom, we believe there is a necessity to plug up the holes in the black letter of the law where we can to promote fairness, fun, and a fulfilling experience for all of our fellow citizens and players. To err is to be human, but to do justice—Divine.
In this matter, we rule in Equity and overturn the trial court's decision. 12700k made a deal with the Government that the Government intended to uphold. 12700k relied on this deal and believed that he had no obligation to continue to engage as a defendant in the case at hand. His actions—though brash and should not be emulated or repeated—were understandable. The Government made a covenant with 12700k that it failed to properly uphold, and 12700k should not be punished for their failure. In the future, we hope that both sides of a like deal will be more vigilant.
It should be noted that we do not make this decision lightly. The offense in question was minor, of low provocation, was understandable in the circumstances—though not necessarily reasonable—and he relied upon the words and advice of the top prosecuting official in the Kingdom. That official further agrees with 12700k's appeal here.
With all of these facts in mind, we hold that the scope in which Equity can be held is extremely narrow in nature. Our body of law is incomplete, unrefined, and at times backwards. There may be moments where there are no parties in the wrong, and it would be manifestly unjust—to the extent that it shocks the mind or is otherwise monstrously unfair—to uphold some ruling mandated by black letter law. We find these moments to be comparatively few and far between, and anticipate—and commit—that we will have to rule in Equity very, very seldomly, and perhaps only in cases involving the rights of an individual.
This appeal shall mark the beginning of the end of this court's policy of extended leniency. Let all who dare practice in the Kingdom of Alexandria be made well aware: it is expected that the legal system must continue to mature, and standards must be raised. In the future, we will not look so lightly upon cases like these. Further, as stated above, we rule in Equity here because we believe it is our duty granted by the Constitution as guardians of the rights of the players and citizens of Alexandria to plug up the holes within our law at this early point in our history. If Parliament were to remove this ability through simple statute, expressing their desire to only ever allow this court to grant relief in Law and to ignore Equity, we shall obey their will.
-=-
In closing, we find this case to be one of those few, selective, and narrow instances, and grant this appeal, overturning the Contempt of Court charge and ordering 12700k to be unfined £500.
