판결 이유
Unauthorised access to a computer system by using stolen credentials did not constitute an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 because a password is not a 'false instrument'. This case exposed a gap in the law and directly led to the enactment of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
사실관계
Gold and Schifreen gained unauthorised access to British Telecom's Prestel service by shoulder-surfing the credentials of a BT engineer. They accessed the Duke of Edinburgh's private mailbox. They were charged under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 with making a false instrument (the electronic signals conveying the password).
판결 요약
The House of Lords quashed the convictions. Lord Brandon held that the language of the 1981 Act was not designed for, and could not be stretched to cover, computer hacking. An electronic signal conveying a password was not a 'false instrument' within the meaning of the Act. The decision demonstrated that existing criminal law was inadequate to deal with computer misuse, prompting the Law Commission to recommend new legislation.
주요 인용문
"The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 was not designed to fit the facts of the present case. The procrustean attempt to force those facts into the language of an Act not designed to fit them produced grave difficulties."
— Lord Brandon
후속 처리
The gap identified in this case led directly to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which created specific offences for unauthorised access to computers.