Snell v Pryce [1990] NTSC 2; 99 FLR 213 (15 February 1990)

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.