Morgans v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1998 |
| Date | 07 December 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Sullivan
Criminal procedure - computer misuse - whether proceedings brought within time limit
Time began to run, for the purposes of section 11(2) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, once evidence came to the knowledge of the prosecutor and not when the prosecutor came to the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to warrant proceedings.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in allowing an appeal by Stephen Alan Morgans by way of case stated from the dismissal by Southwark Crown Court (Miss Recorder J C A Hughes, QC and justices) on May 29, 1997 of his appeal against conviction before the Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate on January 22, 1997, on five charges alleging that he had obtained unauthorised access to a computer system contrary to section 1(1) of the 1990 Act, and two charges alleging fraudulent misuse of a telecommunications system contrary to the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Mr Lionel Blackman for Mr Morgans; Mr Ian Brook for the prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY said that British Telecommunication's network special investigations manager was asked by a detective constable of the Computer Crime Unit of New Scotland Yard for assistance in a case of suspected hacking, namely using a public telecommunications system for the purpose of obtaining unauthorised access to computer systems.
A call logger was fitted to Mr Morgans' telephone number. By comparing the printouts provided by the logger with computer printouts recording the telecommunications networks of three companies it was possible to show that Mr Morgans' telephone was responsible for accessing the computer controlled telephone networks of companies and securing access to that part of the victim company's computer system enabling an unauthorised user access to an outside line at the company's expense, and he had made many calls to the Phillipines.
Additionally Mr Morgans' phone number had been used to trawl through freephone numbers in search of a mail box with a default password identical to its extension number.
On September 13, 1996 Mr Morgans was arrested by DC Waller and interviewed, then further interviewed on January 8, 1996. By the end of January 1996, DC Waller had all the material evidence on which the prosecution was brought.
On February 16, 1996 the matter was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RSPCA v Johnson
...identical to those in section 31, have been considered in this court and some of the points now in dispute have been raised. In Morgans v the DPP [1999] 1WLR 968, Kennedy LJ considered the time limit under section 11 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Kennedy LJ stated: “The defendant contend......
-
R v Gavin Smart and David Charles Beard
... ... 67 In Morgans v DPP [2001] 1 AC 315 , after referring to the last sentence of above passage, Lord Hope said (at p 333): "It is sufficient, to constitute a communication by means of a public telecommunication system for the purposes of the Act, for an electrical impulse or signal to be ... ...
-
Azam v Epping Forest District Council
... ... There was no unlawfulness in the magistrates' treatment of the matter and no irrationality ... 18 The second case in the quartet, Morgans v the Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] 1 WLR 968 , went to the House of Lords on another point [2001] 1 AC 315 ... With regard to the issue of time for a prosecution, I can deal with the case shortly. Although it is the only case in the trilogy which has been reported in the authorised ... ...
-
The Queen v Elvis Kelsey Ebanks
... ... The Law in England has moved on with the passage of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) (‘ RIPA’), however, no parallel law has been passed in the Cayman Islands ... 8 The Defence rely on the House of Lords case of Morgans v. DPP [2001] 1 A.C. 315 where the Law Lords found that any such evidence would always be inadmissible ... 9 The Defence submit that, in the Cayman Islands, the Regulations are even more restrictive, because they refer to the prohibition of the evidence in any legal ... ...