ALISTAIR CHARLES CURRIE v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 57 of 2004

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 57 OF 2004 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA NO. 795 OF 2004)

_____________________

Between:

	ALISTAIR CHARLES CURRIE	Applicant
	and
	HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION	Respondent

_____________________

 

Appeal Committee:

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing:	14 January 2005
Date of Determination:	14 January 2005

______________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.  This applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a decision of the High Court affirming his conviction in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself, contrary to s.16(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. 

2.  The charge is based on the sad fact that, while he was a Chief Inspector of Police attached to the Marine Regional Command and Control Centre, he accessed that centre’s computer system and obtained therefrom a certain person’s address.  He pretended that he was doing so in connection with a police inquiry in relation to a vessel.  In fact, that person was a former tenant of his.  Why he wanted his former tenant’s address is unknown.  It is also plainly irrelevant.  He obtained the information for his private purposes by pretending that the information was required in connection with his police duties.  Not only was his conduct unauthorised.  The pretence rendered the information gained by such pretence a dishonest gain.  That suffices to establish his guilt.  What matters is that his purpose was private and not, as he pretended, connected with his police duties.  Beyond that, it does not matter why he wanted the information.  So his leave application ¾ which is based on the untenable contention that his precise purpose in obtaining the information had to be established and shown to be dishonest independently of how the information was obtained ¾ is dismissed. 

 

 

(Kemal Bokhary) Permanent Judge

(Patrick Chan) Permanent Judge

(R.A.V. Ribeiro) Permanent Judge

 

Mr Andrew Bruce SC (instructed by Messrs John M. Pickavant & Co.) for the applicant

Mr Eddie Sean (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent