I think a big problem is most corporations would never admit to be hacked. I think if they did the law would be better prepared to handle such cases.

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

I suggest that is an oversimplified view. UK courts are adversarial and so the defence is entitled to call and cross-examine any witrness whose evidence is relevant. It woul;l not be dealt with simply by evidence such as timestamps and the like - questions woulsd asked about how, when, and by whom such evidence was created. The UK Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has produced guidelines for the police when presenting computer based electronic evides in criminal cases. http://www.dataclini...uide%20v3.0.pdfThere are four principles:"Principle 1: No action taken by law enforcement agencies or their agents should change data held on a computer or storage media which may subsequently be relied upon in court.Principle 2: In exceptional circumstances, where a person finds it necessary to access original data held on a computer or on storage media, that person must be competent to do so and be able to give evidence explaining the relevance and the implications of their actions.Principle 3: An audit trail or other record of all processes applied to computer based electronic evidence should be created and preserved. An independent third party should be able to examine those processes and achieve the same result.Principle 4: The person in charge of the investigation (the case officer) has overall responsibility for ensuring that the law and these principles are adhered to. "If AVSIM's evidence was not obtained in accordance with there guideline it could be ruled inadmissable by the court.The hack occured to a computer outside the UK so the prosecution will have to prove that the alleged hacker carried out the illegal acts in the UK.There was a delay between the alleged offence being committed and its being reported to the UK police. The defence may require AVSIM to explain its reasons for this in court.The authorities in the UK will need to take these, and possibly, other matters into account before reaching any decision.

I think you've either got your wires crossed there, or misunderstood how cases are brought to trial. Those guidelines you quote are to assist police officers when investigating a crime, but that is all they are, i.e rough guidelines. They are not necessarily indicative of the procedures police officers might be given by the CPS when they have been contacted by a person or organisation in relation to a crime having occurred. Thus, if someone contacts the police about a crime and the police investigate it, they will contact the Crown Prosecution Pervice, which amongst other things, has a duty to advise the police on how to go about gathering evidence, and having been advised on what evidence to gather, that's when they will go and get it.So it is not a case of someone from Avsim wandering into a police station with a big stack of stuff saying 'here is my evidence', but rather the reverse, where the police, upon advice from the CPS, will then go and gather the required evidence. Thus it is rather unlikely that the evidence would have been gathered without following the guidelines the CPS had suggested in order to create a case to answer, since they are the ones who decide whether a case is a go or a no go in the first place. It therefore stands to reason that the evidence will have been gathered in the correct fashion to make a case, since that is exactly what the CPS will have told the police to go and get hold of. Moreover, if any matter was unusable as evidence, such things would not be 'ruled inadmissable by the court', that's the stuff of trashy courtroom drama movies. Evidence which is deemed unsuitable would not be used for a prosecution in the UK in the first place, since the CPS determines what is viable evidence when deciding whether or not to proceed with a case, and that's what they tell the police to go and get hold of.Al

The Good Practice Guide was not produced by ACPO in isolation and is is not simply "rough guidelines". It contains references to the CPs and sets out in detail, with flow charts, the procedures to be followed. Importantly, it is a published dicument and the defence will latch on any failure to comply with it in order to discredit the prosecution case by showing that a police witness didn't comply with police guidelines!I agree with you that AVSIM's evidence on its own is effectively valueless. The point is whether or not it is practicable for the Metropolitan Police to attempt to reproduce it - given the computer is in the USA and the time that elapsed between the alleged offence and its being reported to the Police. Incidentally, the defence may well wish to question AVSIM about the reasons for the delay. On the matter of admissibilty, it is the the Court that decides on that, not the CPS. It's not at all uncommon for admissibilityof eveidencv to be challenged in court. The CPS aren't infallible and, like any other lawyers, its staff will try it on.The case of R v Vatsal Patel is interesting and has some relevance here.http://www.computere...icles/Patel.htm

I don't see the relevance of the time between the alleged offence being committed and the report being made, in terms of it being capable of prosecuted. if indeed there was any delay. If someone robs my house whilst I'm on holiday and I don't report it until a week later when I get home and discover the crime, it doesn't make it any less of a crime.And who says that things were not reported as soon as was practicable anyway? I'm not in any position to know that, and I presume anybody who wasn't at the heart of the matter isn't in a position to know that either.Al

AVSIM's own news item on its front page dated 8 September 2009 states there was a 3 month delay and gives the resons for it. "Finally, though we tried to resolve this over the last three months out of court, giving this person two opportunities to settle with us, the individual did not avail himself of the opportunity - in fact, he has ignored our proffers. We are now doing as we promised this person we would do; ratcheting this up to the next, criminal, level. "Defence counsel would almost certainly ask the obvious question.

I think you're getting a wee bit confused Chock.The CPS are not the first port of call for the victims of a crime........................that's the Police function. In receipt of a complaint, the Police do not immediately contact the CPS and ask what they should do (as it were). The Police will investigate an allegation and report the facts to the CPS. It is at that point that the CPS may request further enquiries to ascertain specific facts that they (the CPS) feel are necessary for a case to proceed.Once Police investigations are completed the CPS will then decide if there is a prima facie case. If there is, they will then consider whether there is a reasonable expectation of a prosecution and finally consider whether it is the public interest to pursue the matter. Part of this "public interest" will include the costs of bringing the case to court and whether there is any chance of recovery of costs on conviction.Will it be in the public interest for the UK to spend thousands taking the accused to court? Given the current financial climate, I have my doubts.