Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose (Section 249(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961)

Charge 1: Dishonestly accessing a computer system in order to cause loss under s 249(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961

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 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 Ms Jones suffered loss when Mr Smith accessed the Samsung laptop?
	“Loss” means any loss that is more than trivial. It includes the transfer of funds which are later returned. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that the loss suffered by Ms Jones was caused as a result of Mr Smith accessing the laptop?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that Mr Smith did not have express or implied authority from an authorised person to cause the loss?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that Mr Smith did not genuinely believe he had express or implied authority from an authorised person to cause the loss?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question six.
6.	Are you sure that Mr Smith caused the loss without claim of right?
	[Note: Although this element has to be put to the jury, it is unlikely that it will be an issue as claim of right is defined by reference to a right in property, but here no property has been obtained.] “Claim of right” means Mr Smith had a genuine belief that, at the time of causing the loss, he had a lawful right to cause the loss. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.