Exam (elaborations)
criminal law essay
- Course
- Institution
Exam of 3 pages for the course Law at Aston (Full essay)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
lawboss71
Content preview
Is the Computer Misuse Act (1990) Appropriate?The Computer Misuse Act was created to aid the prosecution of technological
related crimes, commonly known as hacking. The most prominent case was R v
Gold and Schifreen, where Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold accessed British
Telecom’s Viewdata service by “shoulder surfing” an engineer’s username and
password. The credentials were very simple; this brought about concerns as to the
integrity and security of computer system access. The pair were prosecuted under
the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and received a relatively small penalty –
fined £750 and £600 respectively. This case threw into light the lack of legislature
regarding crimes of this manner, and so the CMA was created.
Hacking is defined in Section 1 of the CMA as, “unauthorised access to any
programme or data held in any computer”. This definition is moulded such that
external hackers like Schifreen and Gold can be prosecuted easily. However it has
not been as simple in other cases such as Ellis v DPP (No 1). In this case an ex-
student was using other student accounts that had been left logged in in order to
access computers in the campus library. It was argued whether it could be deemed
unauthorised under section 1. Lord Woolf CJ however said that the access was still
unauthorised and that statutory provisions were sufficiently wide to include use of the
computers; Ellis was prosecuted under section 1 of the CMA.
The question “what is unauthorised access?” has been a cause of concern for many
cases under section 1. The key early case was DPP v Bignell [1998] Div. Ct. in
which married police officers accessed the police database in order to find the car of
an ex-lover. Accessing the database was not unauthorised, but their use of it was
and they were found to be guilty. Other cases that contributed confusion were, R v
Bow Street Magistrate and Allison, ex parte US Govt [1999] HL, R v Ashley Mitchell
2011 and R v Cuthbert 2005 Mag Ct.
The media and other critics applied a lot of pressure for change. The government
accepted the All-Party Internet Group’s recommendations and section 1 became
triable in either way, which was an amendment from section 35 of the Police and
Justice Act (PJA) 2006.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawboss71. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.32. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
76669 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now