Offences, Jurisdiction & Evidence: The UK experience Dr Ian Walden Director, Computer Related Crime Research Centre Queen Mary & Westfield College

Computer fraud input, processing or output – R v Thompson (1984) Theft Act 1968, s.15 – deception (eg. R v Moritz (1981)) Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 155 (1999) – property Oxford v Moss (1979) R v Preddy (1996) & Theft Act 1968, s.15A

Computer forgery Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, s.1: "A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine..." –R v Gold (1988)

Criminal Damage tangible (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.10) –R v Whiteley (1991) intangible (Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.3) –unauthorised modification: to impair the operation, prevent or hinder access or reliability R v Goulden (1992) R v Pile (1995) R v Whitaker (1993)

Unauthorised Access I Computer Misuse Act 1990, s. 1: hacking..causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; –R v Sean Cropp (1991) –R v Bedworth (1993) –R v Farquharson (1993) –R v Pryce (1997)

Unauthorised Access II authorisation –DPP v Bignell (1998) –R v Bow Street Magistrates Court, ex parte Allison (1999) employment law –Denco v Joinson (1990) –BT plc v Rodrigues (1995) incohate offences: `incitement or conspiracy with others to commit an offence' –Hackers Handbook

Transnational Crime determining the locus delicti –eg. Computer Misuse Act 1990, s.4, 5: significant link jurisdictional conflicts –eg. ex parte Osman [1989] –eg. ex parte Levin [1996] extradition –eg. R v Bow Street Magistrates Court, ex parte Allison [1998]

Admissibility Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 –s.69: …at all material times the computer was operating properly… R v Shephard [1993] R v Cochrane [1993] DPP v McKeown [1997] –Law Commission Report No. 245 (June 1997)

Concluding remarks