« ICO rules against Cabinet Office | Main | Open source license bars claim for copyright infringement »

23 August 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c948553ef00e54ee338ab8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WiFi poacher snared in "once in a decade" swoop:

Comments

Laurence Eastham

I am not at all sure that there was an offence. Where is the element of dishonesty, an essential ingredient in the offence, in sitting on a garden wall? How do you intend to avoid payment, another essential ingredient, of the s. 125 offence, if you are using a pre-paid broadband connection (which most are)?
There may have been relevant admissions (the fool!) but how does the innocent distinguish between a freely available wi-fi hot-spot and a home wi-fi that is unsecured and has leaked? And why does the said innocent have to?

Deryck

I'll think about this while I'm on holiday - maybe.

One point I would make as an old criminal courts lawyer is that the test for dishonesty as laid down by the case of R v Ghosh (is this still good law?) was whether the average person would consider the conduct dishonest - that might be the case here (depending on the particular facts / admissions. The pre-payment issue could be relevant if the subscriber's broadband charges depended on usage volumes, as this could be like abstracting their electricity.

Not the sort of case the average harassed Duty solicitor would welcome after an all-nighter ministering to the nocturnal crime set...

The comments to this entry are closed.

About IMPACT

Contact IMPACT

  • Feel free to email the IMPACT team with any suggestions for new content, or if you'd like us to assist you with any legal issues.

Search


  • search the web
    search IMPACT

The legal bit

  • The news and articles on IMPACT are not legal advice and you shouldn't rely on them as if they were. Please don't act on any of the information on this blog without getting professional advice on the subject. Like most free general information blogs, we don't accept any liability in connection with your use of the information on the site.

    If you do need specific legal advice, the team behind IMPACT would be delighted to help.

    Creative Commons License

    We post the information on this blog under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0 Licence (English law). You provide any comments and materials that you make on the same Creative Commons licence terms.

    Find out why we use a Creative Commons licence.

    We've registered our brands as trade marks. The following links will take you to the registrations for IMPACT, Freeth Cartwright and FC.

Accessibility

  • We take accessibility very seriously. We want everyone to be able to access the stuff we've put on the blog. If you've got any comments or suggestions for how to make the blog more accessible, please email the team.

    To learn more about accessibility and why it's important see our article Making websites open to all. There are more accessibility posts in the Accessibility section of IMPACT.