Alistair Charles Currie v. HKSAR
Read the full judgment text of FAMC 57/2004 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 14 January 2005.
1. This applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a decision of the High Court affirming his conviction in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself, contrary to s.16(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.
Cited by 5 cases
|
FAMC No. 57 of 2004 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 57 OF 2004 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 795 OF 2004) _____________________ Between:
_____________________
______________________ D E T E R M I N A T I O N ______________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ: 1.This applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a decision of the High Court affirming his conviction in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself, contrary to s.16(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. 2.The charge is based on the sad fact that, while he was a Chief Inspector of Police attached to the Marine Regional Command and Control Centre, he accessed that centre’s computer system and obtained therefrom a certain person’s address. He pretended that he was doing so in connection with a police inquiry in relation to a vessel. In fact, that person was a former tenant of his. Why he wanted his former tenant’s address is unknown. It is also plainly irrelevant. He obtained the information for his private purposes by pretending that the information was required in connection with his police duties. Not only was his conduct unauthorised. The pretence rendered the information gained by such pretence a dishonest gain. That suffices to establish his guilt. What matters is that his purpose was private and not, as he pretended, connected with his police duties. Beyond that, it does not matter why he wanted the information. So his leave application ¾ which is based on the untenable contention that his precise purpose in obtaining the information had to be established and shown to be dishonest independently of how the information was obtained ¾ is dismissed.
Mr Andrew Bruce SC (instructed by Messrs John M. Pickavant & Co.) for the applicant Mr Eddie Sean (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent |