COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
Angel J.(1)
CWDS
Appeal - Justices - Appeal against conviction
- unlawfully abstracting
confidential information from a computer with intent to use it to obtain an
advantage for another whether
information "confidential" information available
in public domain Criminal Code s.222; Justices Act.
Confidential Information - Unlawful abstraction of what constitutes
"confidential information" whether information available elsewhere
to the
public can be "confidential" Criminal Code s.222.
Criminal Law - Appeal - Conviction - Unlawfully abstracting confidential
information from a computer with intent to use it to obtain an advantage for
another - information available to the public from other
sources - meaning of
"confidential information" - failure of prosecution to identify precisely
information abstracted and to demonstrate
confidentiality Criminal Code s.222.
Cases referred to:
Ackroyds (London) Ltd. v Islington Plastics Ltd (1962) RPC 97
Attorney-General's Department and Anor v Cockcroft
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd and Ors ;
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd and Ors (No.2)
;
Attorney-General for the U.K. v Heinemann Publishers Australia
Pty Ltd and Anor ;
Church of Scientology v Kaufman
Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd
Corrs Pavey Whiting and Byrne v Collection of Customs (Vic.)
and Anor ;
Exchange Telegraph Co, Ltd v Central News, Ltd
Exchange Telegraph Co Ltd v Gregory and Co
Franchi v Franchi
Interfirm Comparison (Australia) Pty Ltd v Law Society
of New South Wales
Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Ltd and Anor (No. 2)
(1983/84) ;
Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd and Anor v Galli and
Anor ;
Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co
Ltd
Schering Chemicals v Falkman Ltd and Ors
Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle
HRNG
DARWIN
#DATE 15:2:1990
The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent: J. Adams
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Solicitor for the N.T.
ORDER
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside.
JUDGE1
On 14 April 1989, the appellant was convicted of a
charge that between the
18th day of February 1988 and the 12th day of March 1988, at Darwin in the
Northern Territory of Australia,
she unlawfully abstracted confidential
information from a computer with intent to use it to obtain an advantage for
another contrary
to section 222 of the Criminal Code. Having entered a
conviction the learned Special Magistrate released the appellant on a bond,
on
her own recognizance, to be of good behaviour for 12 months.