Accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose under section 249(2) Crimes Act 1961

Charge 1: Accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose under section 249(2)

The Crown must prove each element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. That is called the standard of proof. It means that you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that Mr Smith, directly or indirectly, accessed the Samsung laptop?
	[Note: Where there is an issue as to whether what was accessed falls within the definition of a computer system, the trial judge should have recourse to the definition in s 248 of the Crimes Act.] “Access” means instruct, communicate with, store data in, receive data from, or otherwise make use of any of the resources of the computer system. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to obtain a benefit when he accessed the Samsung laptop [property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage or valuable consideration]?
	[Note: Amend or delete the words in square brackets above as required.] “Benefit” means anything that provides an advantage to Mr Smith. It will only be a benefit if it actually improves the position of Mr Smith. It does not include potential benefits. “Property” includes land and personal property, and any right or interest in any land or personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and any right to a claim in court, and any other right or interest. It also includes data which has been stored in digital form in computer files. It does not include pure information. “Service” means an activity that has financial or economic value. “Pecuniary advantage” means anything that improves Mr Smith’s financial position. “Valuable consideration” means anything involving an exchange of value whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind. In other words, money or money’s worth. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith did not have express or implied authority from an authorised person to obtain the benefit [property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage or valuable consideration]?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that Mr Smith did not genuinely believe he had express or implied authority from an authorised person to obtain the benefit [property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage or valuable consideration]?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to obtain the benefit without claim of right?
	“Claim of right” means Mr Smith had a genuine belief that, at the time of intending to obtain the benefit, he had a lawful right to the benefit. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.