It is just over a year since AVSIM laid information about the alleged hacker with the Metropolitan Police in the UK. Have the authorities reached any decision about prosecution?

I hope that guy is in behind bars right now. Becasue he destoryed this best FlightSim site.

It is just over a year since AVSIM laid information about the alleged hacker with the Metropolitan Police in the UK. Have the authorities reached any decision about prosecution?

We are not going to get into this, other than to say that we are pretty confident that we won't see this guy pulling stunts like that again.

We are not going to get into this,

tom:after the 'drama' from you last post on this issue you have made a good choice.--

on 1st October 2010, the UK Crown Prosecution Service wrote: "I can confirm that the CPS holds no information on the prosecution of a Mr Paul Dawson for the alleged hacking of the AVSIM website in 2009." I am still awaiting a response from the Metropolitan Police.

Avsim is a business, no business puts all their cards on the table--those that do rarely survive or have the stamina Avsim has shown. Regards,John

on 1st October 2010, the UK Crown Prosecution Service wrote: "I can confirm that the CPS holds no information on the prosecution of a Mr Paul Dawson for the alleged hacking of the AVSIM website in 2009." I am still awaiting a response from the Metropolitan Police.

Huh? I really should read more in these forums.So are you suggesting the CPS chose to do nothing, or that AVSIM didn't present evidence? Why do I have the phrase "smoke and mirrors" in my head?

Huh? I really should read more in these forums.So are you suggesting the CPS chose to do nothing, or that AVSIM didn't present evidence? Why do I have the phrase "smoke and mirrors" in my head?

I am not suggesting anything - merely quoting what the CPS wrote in a letter.

You may well find that the CPS do not prosecute, given that the "complainer" and witnesses to the alleged offence reside outwith the UK. Any trial resulting from a prosecution would be too expensive, given the nature of the offence.

The CPS is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales and for:1 advising the police on cases for possible prosecution;2 reviewing cases submitted by the police;3 determining any charges in all but minor cases;4 preparing cases for court;5 presenting cases at court.There are two tests to be satisfied before starting a prosecution:1 there must be a realistic prospect of conviction 2 prosecution is required in the public interest.Both tests must be satisfied before a prosecution is mounted.http://www.cps.gov.u...s/codetest.html

The CPS is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales and for:1 advising the police on cases for possible prosecution;2 reviewing cases submitted by the police;3 determining any charges in all but minor cases;4 preparing cases for court;5 presenting cases at court.There are two tests to be satisfied before starting a prosecution:1 there must be a realistic prospect of conviction 2 prosecution is required in the public interest.Both tests must be satisfied before a prosecution is mounted.http://www.cps.gov.u...s/codetest.html

Yes, that's all very well in theory. In practice, however, the costs of the trial must be weighed against any realistic possibility of not only getting a conviction, but also recovering costs from the accused.In this instance, the prosecution would have to call Tom Allensworth and any of the website "gurus" to testify as to the "how, when and by whom" which would entail paying expenses for a. Loss of earnings, b. Travel and c. Accomodation to all the witnesses from the USA. The defence may stipulate that the site was hacked, but the prosecution needs to prove how it was hacked and most importantly by whom. That cannot be done without witnesses being called.Given the current court lists, the current financial climate etc., it is more than a possibility that the CPS will "no-pro" the case and suggest a civil prosecution to recover costs and damages from the accused.

Yes, that's all very well in theory. In practice, however, the costs of the trial must be weighed against any realistic possibility of not only getting a conviction, but also recovering costs from the accused.In this instance, the prosecution would have to call Tom Allensworth and any of the website "gurus" to testify as to the "how, when and by whom" which would entail paying expenses for a. Loss of earnings, b. Travel and c. Accomodation to all the witnesses from the USA. The defence may stipulate that the site was hacked, but the prosecution needs to prove how it was hacked and most importantly by whom. That cannot be done without witnesses being called.Given the current court lists, the current financial climate etc., it is more than a possibility that the CPS will "no-pro" the case and suggest a civil prosecution to recover costs and damages from the accused.

That is speculation - given what I said in Post #5.

That is speculation - given what I said in Post #5.

Of course it is, but it's based on more than 20 years experience of court matters.

As far as the CPS shunning such a case and deferring it to a lesser procedure goes, anyone who knows anything about the legal state of affairs in relation to computer fraud in the UK, will be more than aware that it is currently rather a favourite topic given what the UK Government is proposing with regard to computing and the web. So the notion of the CPS dismissing such a case as too trivial or not in the public interest, is probably the last thing they would decide to do at the moment. On the contrary, I daresay they would welcome it as a test case.And with regard to witnesses having to travel to the UK, that is not necessarily something that would be needed. Given that the alleged offence was committed remotely on a computer, there is little need for personal appearances by those involved. Such a case would have to deal with documented factual evidence such as timestamps and the like and not the cross-examination of witnesses in court. So both the plaintiff and the defendant would most likely be represented by their respective legal counsels stating who did what and when and then reviewing those facts. And well advised they would be to leave it to the solicitors too. As I'm sure most people are aware; a man who attempts to defend himself in court, has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer.Al

As far as the CPS shunning such a case and deferring it to a lesser procedure goes, anyone who knows anything about the legal state of affairs in relation to computer fraud in the UK, will be more than aware that it is currently rather a favourite topic given what the UK Government is proposing with regard to computing and the web. So the notion of the CPS dismissing such a case as too trivial or not in the public interest, is probably the last thing they would decide to do at the moment. On the contrary, I daresay they would welcome it as a test case.And with regard to witnesses having to travel to the UK, that is not necessarily something that would be needed. Given that the alleged offence was committed remotely on a computer, there is little need for personal appearances by those involved. Such a case would have to deal with documented factual evidence such as timestamps and the like and not the cross-examination of witnesses in court. So both the plaintiff and the defendant would most likely be represented by their respective legal counsels stating who did what and when and then reviewing those facts. And well advised they would be to leave it to the solicitors too. As I'm sure most people are aware; a man who attempts to defend himself in court, has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer.Al

Al, the rules governing evidence are many and varied, however when available "best evidence" should be lead. It's all well and good using documentary evidence, however (unless agreed to) you still need a witness to verify the authenticity of the documents. Not sure about England, but in Scotland, you also need evidence from the complainer, which in this case would be the owner of Avsim........................his evidence would cover 1. that a crime had been committed, 2. that a loss had been incurred.Whilst there is indeed a great interest in prosecuting computer fraud, this incident is not fraud as such. It relates to denial of service and;"The main anti-hacking laws of the UK are contained in the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but the wording of that Act is such that it could be difficult to use it to prosecute someone for a denial of service attack. Instead, in England, a denial of service attack might be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act; in Scotland, such an attack could be prosecuted as malicious mischief."http://www.out-law.com/page-1409