SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Crown court judge stands accused of breaching the Computer Misuse Act after allegedly accessing a case file that she had a personal interest in. Her Honour Judge Karen Jane Holt appeared at Southwark Crown Court yesterday. It was said that in September 2016 she viewed the digital case file for one Cecil McCready, a music teacher found guilty last year of child sex crimes. It is understood the victim is not related to Holt.
Charged under the name Karen Smith, Holt is accused of "intending to secure unauthorised access to that programme and data, knowing at the time that such access was unauthorised". The Crown prosecutor's case against her hinges on whether her access to the judicial Digital Case System when she viewed McCready's file was authorised or not.
Holt, a criminal barrister with more than two decades' experience who was appointed as a recorder (part-time judge) in 2009, was locked in the dock for the duration of the hearing. The accusation against her was made under section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Patrick Gibbs QC, Holt's barrister, told presiding judge Mr Justice Davis: "The Crown has... set out the documents which were viewed and the length of time for which they were viewed."
Prosecuting barrister Philip Evans QC told the court the accusations were "not a case of carelessness or stupidity, it is a deliberate attempt to access files".
Granting Holt unconditional bail and making preparations for a three-day trial, Mr Justice Davis said: "Mrs Smith, I have no doubt you have said this to people so it will come as no surprise to you that if you don't come on 9 July you will be tried in your absence."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 02 2018, @07:19AM (2 children)
Complex crime includes computer misuse and abuse. She can hardly claim to have not understood how to switch the computer on or off if her CV is to be believed, and her role as a Crown Court judge requires her to have an understanding of the types of crimes that she is expected to hear.
I don't think that your recommended defence would carry much weight. Plus, imagine how many claims there will be of an unfair trial if the judge claims that she didn't understand what was actually being said in evidence during the trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:19PM (1 child)
Additionally I doubt ignorance of the law is a valid defense in any modern courthouse. (And ignorance of the law could have the side effect of getting the good judge fired even after a successful trial since it's basically them admitting they're not qualified for the job in the first place.)
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 02 2018, @08:27PM
When you don't know what the buttons do, it's not ignorance of the law. It's ignorance of cyber. The whole Age of Computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what's going on.