Your honors,
Plaintiff’s response is absurd on its face, and built on a fundamentally flawed premise: The burden of proof does not rest on me or my client to show that these statements were satire (or even to explain the object of that satire). Rather, the burden lies squarely with Plaintiff to demonstrate that there is probable cause that a crime was committed. No such demonstration has taken place.
Plaintiff mentions “a very real possibility” that proscribed individuals took steps to interfere with an already ongoing election. That “possibility” is nothing more than speculation; any individuals with the means and desire to interfere did not need my client’s words to do so. Plaintiff offers no proof that such interference occurred, or was planned, or that they were enticed by my client.
Plaintiff also advances the bizarre notion that satire must be explicitly labelled. No such requirement exists - not in law, not in precedent, and certainly not under the Charter’s free speech protections. Over the past 22 years, the South Pacific has enjoyed a rich tradition of satire, much of which was not labelled as such. If Plaintiff’s theory were adopted, the Court would find itself to be very busy indeed issuing indictments to Pencil Sharpeners 2, Kringalia, Tsunamy, Auphelia, and countless others over the past two decades.
Plaintiff’s reference to my client’s supposed “history of election interference” is both misleading and irrelevant. This refers to a singular incident 11 years ago whose only related court case was dismissed and does not constitute probable cause today.
As for Plaintiff’s claim that personal amusement qualifies as corruption, the argument is so obviously absurd that it hardly warrants a response. Enjoying oneself is not a criminal act, nor is it evidence of a corrupt purpose under any reasonable interpretation.
And so once more, we are left with the fact that there is no evidence of election interference, no proof of an underlying corrupt purpose, and no basis for probable cause. The indictment against my client was a mistake, and the only just outcome is a verdict of Not Guilty.