Peter A Clarke

One of the developing areas of prosecutions worldwide are offences of using the internet to disable businesses.  The best known offences relate to the production and dissemination of  viruses. 

A more subtle and concerning form of offence in England is the denial of use of a computer by a party sending another a stream of emials to disable a target computer or system.  That is the nub of the Computer Misuse Act.  Earlier this week a London Court cleared a British teenager of charges under the Computer Misuse Act.  The prosecution alleged that the teenager sent 5 million emails to a former employer.  The three possible offences are:

• unauthorised access to computer material
• unauthorised modification
• unauthorised access with the intent to commit or facilitation the commission of further offences

These offences have been labelled Dos (Denial of Service) attacks.  Outl-Law.com has a fascinating story on the most recent Dos prosecution.  

The next Dos trial is scheduled for 25 November.  Interesting days ahead.

What a balls up in Bali!  It’s the common experience of many baby barristers to take on a plea in mitigation for a client charged with a minor offence in the Magistrates Court for a Legal Aid shekal. There’s a few basic rules.  Don’t fib for the client, put all matters that explain the client’s circumstances, try to get him/her to wear something presentable on the fateful day and make sure your evidence stands up.  Do that and even a basic plodder will do right by the client.  He (as it usually is) may still go inside but the court may refrain from dropping him into a deep dank pit into which he will otherwise find himself.

The Leslie team, if the latest report on the Leslie best in show trial, deserve the keystone cops award for stupidity above and beyond the call . First off, the entre dumb move is the extreme religious make over.  Amazing how Michelle has stepped away from the idyll of Sydney wannabeearti underwear model to the full burkha babe look.  But the highway to Mecca only stopped off at fundamentalville.  She’s now toned down the look to that of extra on the remake of the “Sheik.”(see pic). Amateur hour.  That brilliant and honest expression of her newly found fervour should inspire lawyers in Australia.  Hell when counsel find a foreigner looking to do a stretch for possessing some E or Colombian marching powder, hell just throw a cork hat on him and get him into a moleskin.  That’ll win over the beak every day of the week.

But this saga  gets dopey when the star expert witness Dr Thong reportedly says that the Leslie’s claim to be addicted to Ritalin is about as credible as Alan Bond’s claim to have suffered memory loss just before going into the Big House all those years ago.  Wobbly witnesses are one thing but an expert going feral before jumping the box is more than a mishap.

Bottom line about this debacle is that stunt filled defences may, and only may, get traction once or twice. After that the tolerance dries up.  So where does that leave punters in Bali who actually might have a real walking and talking plea but not the dough of the wannabeearti.  Leslie shouldn’t be facing 15 years for a couple of Es.  For a first offence in Australia should should get a bond or a fine at most.  Be that as it may she also shouldn’t assume the Balinese are dopes.