LOW COST HONG KONG LEGAL SERVICE

YIP, TSE & TANG, HONG KONG LAWYERS

  • HONG KONG LEGAL SERVICES
    Yip, Tse & Tang, Hong Kong Lawyers: Low-cost Speedy Hong Kong Legal Services
    Head of Matrimonial Department: Polly Hui: Divorce, Custody, Maintenance
    Senior Partner:Thomas Tse<: Wedding Civil Celebrant, Properties Sale and Purchase, Mortgages
    Managing Partner:Charles Tse: Employees' Compensation Claims, Personal Injuries
    Partner: Bankruptcy, Divorce, Deed Poll
    Partner: Bankruptcy, Divorce, Deed Poll

Traffic

  • Visits

« Digi-Sign Certification Services Now Available in Macau | Main | E-mail scam hits bank customers »

LI MAN WAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE - [2003] HKCFA 34; FACC000006/2003, 6 November 2003

The is a Court of Final Appeal decision.

The appellant was charged with obtaining access to a computer, namely, the Inland Revenue Department's (IRD) computer system, with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another, contrary to s.161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. He was acquitted after trial before a magistrate, Ms J M Livesey. Section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance with which the appellant was charged provides:

"(1) Any person who obtains access to a computer -

(c) with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another;

whether on the same occasion as he obtains such access or on any future occasion, commits an offence ..."

Upon an application by the prosecution pursuant to s.105 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, the magistrate stated a case for the opinion of a judge of the Court of First Instance. Beeson J, having heard submissions from the parties, ordered the case to be remitted to the magistrate with a direction that she convict the appellant and pass sentence accordingly.

As directed by the judge, the magistrate subsequently convicted the appellant and fined him $1,000. The appellant appeals to this Court on the ground of substantial and grave injustice.

The Facts

The facts are not in dispute. Since the end of 1996, the appellant has been employed as an Assistant Assessor of the IRD. As required for the discharge of his duties, he made an Affirmation of Secrecy under s.4(2) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap 112, stating, among other things, that he would at all times preserve and aid in preserving secrecy with respect to all matters that may come to his knowledge in the performance of his duties under that Ordinance.

For the purpose of gaining access to the IRD's computer system, the appellant was assigned a user identity and a password which he used in the performance of his duties. All staff of the IRD, including the appellant, received regular reminders of the importance of observing the official secrecy provisions.

On 11 July 2000, using his user identity and password, the appellant gained access to the IRD computer system and obtained the identity card number and address of the complainant who was one of his colleagues and whose record as a taxpayer was kept in that system. He had no business in handling the complainant's tax matters and he obtained such information without the authority of the IRD or the complainant's consent.

The appellant then made use of such information in applying for membership of the World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong on behalf of the complainant. In the application form, he also included his own name and credit card number to enable payment of the entrance fee and he signed to authorize payment through his credit card. The complainant had not requested the appellant to make the application on her behalf.

Held:

It is accepted that there was an unauthorised access by the appellant to IRD's computer system. It is further accepted (although the appellant argued to the contrary in the courts below) that he had obtained a gain within the meaning of s.161(2) from the system by extracting the relevant information relating to the complainant. The remaining issue is whether there was dishonesty on the part of the appellant. It is common ground that this issue is to be determined by the application of the Ghosh test to the facts.

Evidence of Dishonesty:Any ordinary reasonable person would be aware that members of the public, particularly taxpayers, expect that their personal information kept by the IRD is protected and not released without their permission. Any public officer would be aware of the need and importance of maintaining such confidentiality. It was precisely for this purpose that the appellant was provided with a user identity and password for gaining access to the computer and was required to and did make an Affirmation of Secrecy under s.4(2) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. IRD staff including the appellant were reminded of the importance of this obligation by the IRD's regular circulars. The appellant must have known that his access to the computer was unauthorized and that the IRD would not have given approval. He must be aware that this would be a breach of the trust which the IRD had placed in him as an employee and which the public had placed in him as a public officer. He must be aware that this would seriously affect the integrity of the IRD computer system and was an abuse of his position.

On the other hand, it is not disputed that the appellant did not intend to obtain and had not obtained any personal financial gain. On the contrary, he paid the entrance fee to join the WWF and he did what he did for purely personal or benevolent reasons. What is more significant is that in the application form for membership, he had put down his own name and credit card number. It is thus clear that he never intended to conceal his own identity or involvement in it. He did not try to cover his tracks. Indeed it might well be that he wanted the complainant (and possibly other people as well) to know that it was he who had done it. This is a conduct which could reasonably be regarded as inconsistent with dishonesty.

In the present case, it cannot, in my view, be said that the only reasonable conclusion which could have been open to a tribunal of fact was that the appellant was dishonest. It cannot be said that the magistrate's verdict is perverse.

There has been a departure from the accepted norm: the judge was not entitled to intervene. The Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.

Court: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Litton NPJ
Date of Hearing: 27 October 2003
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2003

香港法律熱門網站推介

  • 香港律師辦理分居離婚
    分居紙‧分居書‧分居協議書‧分居証明‧分居証明信
  • 1083 改名契
    改名‧改姓要先辦改名契,即.即取.即用改名契‧收費:$500‧辦公時間可直接前往各律師行,毋須預約。
  • 灣仔網站
    灣仔網站:集商業‧政務‧國際盛事‧消遣‧娛樂‧專業服務於一身
  • IVA債務重組、低息還債
    個人債務重組(IVA)、香港破產、個人自願安排、拯救個人破產、DRP、破產接管、收數公司滋擾、投訴收數公司滋擾
  • 遺產承辦、遺囑、立平安書、財產計劃
    遺產承辦、財產保障、財務策劃、遺產分配、離岸信託基金、遺囑、遺囑認證
  • 醫療疏忽索、診斷失誤償
    醫療疏忽索償網:醫管局、醫生、醫院失誤、病人權益、醫療失誤、專業疏忽賠償、診斷失誤
  • 香港電子法律書介
    電子交易、網址糾紛、電腦犯罪和保安、網上理財、個人資料私隱、電子証據、網上誹謗、互聯網下的版權和司法管轄權
  • 刑事辯護、求情和保釋法律服務
    刑事辯護、求情和保釋:打擔保(差館或法庭)、打甩口供紙、盤問証人、決定應否在庭作証、結案陳詞、案例考究、打甩控罪、獲得輕判
  • 按揭、物業轉按、物業加按、贖樓
    樓宇法律服務:樓宇買賣手續、物業按揭、按揭律師、聯名購買、物業轉按、物業加按、贖樓、居屋買賣、授權、政府收回土地、預售樓花
  • 離婚、撫養權、贍養費、財產分配
    離婚、撫養權、贍養費、財產分配、監護、分居
  • 8989 網上法律大全
    樓宇買賣、按揭、離婚、撫養權、贍養費、遺產承繼、遺囑工傷、職業病、交通傷亡、醫療失誤或疏忽、刑事辯護、保釋、求情、債務重組、IVA、DRP.破產、物業管理、知識產權
  • 法周刊
    刑事辯護、保釋、求情、債務重組、IVA、破產、離婚、撫養權、贍養費、遺產承繼、遺囑、知識產權、樓宇買賣、按揭、因工受傷、職業病、交通傷亡、醫療失誤或疏忽
  • 工傷索償、交通意外傷亡
    工傷索償、交通意外傷亡、人身傷亡、人身受傷:只代表傷者、不代表保險公司
  • 葉謝鄧律師行
    法律服務:債務重組(IVA.DRP)、個人破產申請、因工傷亡索償、車禍意外疏忽索償、醫療疏忽、遺囑、網上刑事罪行、遺產承辦、刑事辯護、刑事求情、保釋、按揭、轉按、贖契
  • 電子交易、網址糾紛、電腦犯罪
    電子交易、網址糾紛、電腦犯罪、保安、網上理財、個人資料私隱、電子証據、網上誹謗、互聯網版權、司法管轄權
  • 破產網
    香港破產、債務重組(IVA)、債務一筆清、個人自願安排、破產條例、分期還款

《香港電子法律》書介