“@SDBI this overuse of the word chud pmo and should count as a crime”.
∆ argued that the report was not manifestly without legal merit.
π argued that the “pmo” wording shows mere annoyance and joking context, such that the summon was manifestly without legal merit.
∆ moved to dismissal for failure to state a claim. At motion consideration stage.
Issue: whether the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the summon occurred in a situation “manifestly without legal merit”.
Holding: No.
Reasoning:
At the "no case to answer" stage of trial.
If the Court is not satisfied that the Prosecution has proven its case sufficiently to the criminal standard, the Court must find the accused not guilty.
Actus reus
Conduct: Pinging the SDBI.
Ruled that ∆ did summon the SDBI in the pleaded message.
"That is capable of satisfying the “mass summon” requirement in Article 22a §1.2."
Attendant Circumstance: "manifestly without legal merit."
The word “manifestly” sets a high threshold: it is not enough that the claim was weak or mistaken; it must be obviously lacking legal merit.
Court found that there were no indicia that showed that the summon was "manifestly without legal merit."
Because the AC of legal merit was not satisfied, ∆ is not guilty.