Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
News ticker
  • Staff Applications: OPEN
  • Bans issued on or after 01 Oct 19 may only be appealed if made in error
  • Bug reports are to be lodged in game via /bugreport
  • IC - Applications for Honours & Awards are open
Sign in to follow this  
Sign in to follow this  

Avocado v The Queen

Recommended Posts



Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff
First Name: Rudolph
Last Name: Guillani
Mobile: 795956

Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation)
First Name: Danny
Last Name: Avocado
Mobile: 9158809
Discord: fliqqs

For Original Jurisdiction
Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force
Defendant Organisation (If available): 
Respondent Discord (if known): -



Statement of Claims:
[1] On the 1st day of September 2021, Mr Danny Avocado was travelling with some new friends he had made, when a Police vehicle stopped them. One of the men with Mr Avocado began to slide across the bonnet of the police vehicle.

[2] This infuriated the officer who became quite unhinged and aggressive, the officer drew his service pistol and pointed it at the man sliding across the bonnet of the vehicle. One of the other men with Mr Avocado then drew his pistol and demanded the officer get on his knees.

[3] Seeing this Mr Avocado asked the man holding the officer up "what are you doing? Don't hold him up". Mr Avocado then ran away not wanting to be a part of this incident.

[4] Mr Avocado was then apprehended by police a short time later and charged with 1c of Criminal Accessory by an Officer with badge number 756 and served 15 months in jail.

[5] Mr Avocado was unlawfully charged with 1c of Criminal accessory, as he did not meet the elements of the offence as set out in  s 24(a) Crimes Act 2018 (SA)

We seek the following remedies from the court:

i) The charge of Criminal Accessory be struck from Mr Avocados Record

ii) The court take any disciplinary actions it deems fit against the officer in question.

iii) SAPF pay Mr Avocados legal fees

Danny Avocado

Witness Testimony of Danny Avocado.

Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties
1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted.
2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y)
3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. 
(Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y)

Edited by Vladimir.k12
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Avocado v The Queen [2021] SADC 59

[1] The Court accepts the appellant's writ of appeal against conviction. As the appeal was lodged after five days, it will be heard on a de novo basis, with the respondent bearing the burden of proof.

[2] The Court orders that the respondent in this matter be provided five days, effective from when they are given notice of these proceedings, to file an appearance/response to these proceedings. Failure to do so will result in the matter being heard without respondent, and may result in a decision in the favour of the appellant by default.

[3] The Court will contact that parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted.

CASE TITLE: Avocado v The Queen [2021] SADC 59




Edited by Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


Avocado v The Queen [2021] SADC 59

[1] The Court takes notice of the Crown's plea of no contest. 

[2]  Accordingly, given the above facts are not in dispute, the Court accepts the facts adduced by the appellant. 

[3] On those facts, the Court finds that the conviction in relation to the Mr. Avocado was a result of an error of law, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

[4]  To make out the charge of criminal accessory under s 24(a), it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused 'where a person has committed an offence... knowing or believing the principal offender to be guilty of the principal offence, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse does any act to hinder or delay the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of the principal offender'. In essence, it must be established that the accused frustrated the application of the criminal justice process in relation to another offender. On the facts presented, it is clear that none of this behaviour was demonstrated by the accused. Not only does the accused not participate in the offending, the accused went out of his way to leave the scene and distance himself from those in his company once he realised what they were doing. It is not possible on any reasoned reading of that situation to suggest, let alone conclude, that the accused somehow hindered or obstructed the application of the criminal justice process in respect of those in his company.

[5] Whilst another offence may have been committed by his associates, it pains the Court to have to remind officers that mere association with an offender is not in of itself an offence. The bringing of criminal proceedings is a very serious business. It therefore stands to reason that it should not be applied lightly, or as it appears to have been in this case, negligently and without basic regard for the law. Whilst this Court does not expect officers to be legal scholars, it does expect a basic degree of legal understanding, especially of the elements of offences applied to accused persons.

[6] The Court expresses its strong disapproval of this officer's plainly subpar conduct. It falls short of what the community ought to expect of it's law enforcement officers. As such, it will be making a disciplinary order pursuant to s 14 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2019. 

[7] In view of that set above, the Court makes the following orders:


  1. Mr. Avocado's conviction for Criminal Accessory be quashed, with a verdict of Not Guilty entered in it's place.
  2. The Respondent pay the appellant's costs on an indemnity basis.
  3. Officer 756 is to be subject to legal training run by a HCMD officer. Among other things, this training should at the very least educate Officer 756 in elements of Criminal Accessory, and how to break down offences generally into their elements.

CASE TITLE: Avocado v The Queen [2021] SADC 59




Edited by Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.