Liew Cheong Wee Leslie v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2013
• Date: 25 July 2013
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 91 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Liew Cheong Wee Leslie

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 141

Choo Han Teck J

Magistrate’s Appeal No 91 of 2012

High Court

Criminal Law—Elements of crime—Mens rea—Appellant accessing computer system—Access causing blackout—Whether accused aware of lack of authority—Whether appellant deliberately caused offence

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Charge—Particulars—Charge not detailing type of damage

Statutory Interpretation—Definitions

The appellant was a 35-year-old engineer who was employed by Power Automation Pte Ltd (“PA”) from 17 January 2010. He left the company on 13 May 2010. During his employment, he worked on a project for the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort. His work concerned working with a “Power Monitoring Control System” or “PMCS”, a computer system for managing and controlling all digitally controlled equipment in the resort including the casino.

On 12 May 2010 there was a massive blackout at the casino around 12.20 am. After investigations, the appellant was charged on five counts under s 3 (1) of the Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50 A, 1998 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) and one count under s 3 (2) of the Act, for unauthorised access of the PMCS.

In the trial below, the appellant was convicted on all six charges and was sentenced to a fine of $3,000 each for the first to fifth charges and two weeks’ imprisonment and $15,000 fine in respect of the sixth charge. He appealed against convictions and sentences. The Prosecution cross-appealed against the sentences passed.

Held, dismissing both appeals but amending the sixth charge from a charge under s 3 (1) to one under s 3 (2):

(1) Although there was a chain of command hinting at the possibility that the appellant had authority to access the system, the appellant’s elaborate set of actions in accessing the system showed that he deliberately intended to cause the blackout. It was clear that he had no authority to access the computer for this purpose: at [3] .

(2) It was the duty of the Prosecution to ensure that all the particulars that constituted a charge were given so that the accused knew exactly what he needed to defend himself against: at [5] .

(3) The charge did not specify the damage caused, a necessary ingredient of s 3 (2). Although the trial judge took into account the reputation of the MBS which was significant to the Singapore tourism industry, this was not within the definition of “damage” in s 2 of the Act: at [5] .

(4) It was only on appeal that the DPP submitted that a blackout might be a threat to public safety. This was not particularised nor was any evidence led to support it. The sixth charge was therefore amended to a charge under s 3 (1) by deleting the words “Section 3 (2) read with”. The sentence was thus varied to a fine of $3,000, and in default, three weeks’ imprisonment: at [6] .

Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50 A, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 2, 3 (1) , 3 (2) (consd) ;ss 3, 3 (2) (a)

Wee Pan Lee (Wee Tay & Lim LLP) for the appellant

Christopher Ong and Terence Chua (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Prosecution.

Choo Han Teck J

1 The appellant was a 35-year-old engineer who was employed by Power Automation Pte Ltd (“PA”) from 17 January 2010. He left the company on 13 May 2010. At the time he was assigned to work in the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort in which PA was a subcontractor for the setting up and...