LOVELL WHITE DURRANT: Richard Pryce fined GBP 1,200 for offences under the computer misuse act 1990

Mr Bartle, a magistrate at Bow Street Magistrates Court, today accepted Richard Pryce’s plea of guilty
in respect of 12 offences of gaining unauthorised access to computer systems under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 when, aged 16, he “hacked” into computer systems in the United States of America, including those of the US Air Force, from a personal computer installed at his home. Following a plea in mitigation which stressed that Richard had been motivated by the curiosity of a teenager, had since been punished by substantial disruption to his career over a three year period and was of good character, the magistrate fined him GBP 1,200. Mr Pryce was represented by international law firm Lovell White Durrant.

The charges against Richard Pryce Richard was arrested at his parents’ home on 12 May
1994, when he was 16, by members of the Computer Crime Unit of New Scotland Yard, who were executing a search warrant. He had been traced by the US authorities to England after an informant provided them with a copy of an on-line conversation which had occurred several months earlier in which Richard disclosed that he was 16, from England and interested in US military systems. He had also provided the informant with his home telephone number. Following his arrest, Richard was released the same day on police bail. On 7 June 1995 – some 13 months after his original arrest, by which time he was in the middle of his A-level exams – he was charged at Holborn police station with 12 offences under Section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Three of these charges were later dropped and three more inserted in their place. On 19 June 1996 Richard was charged with two offences of conspiracy to commit an offence under Sections 1 and 3 of the same Act – charges which were withdrawn on 14 March 1997 after an abuse of process application was commenced by the defence. Despite implying that they would charge him with other offences under Section 3, the Prosecution eventually decided to proceed solely in respect of the revised set of 12 offences under Section 1(1).

The plea in mitigation The Defendant’s legal team stressed three points in the plea in mitigation made on his behalf.

First, Richard was not motivated by malice or by a desire for financial gain, and did not erase or alter
data on the computer systems or disclose any sensitive information.

His actions were motivated by the curiosity of a bright 16 year old who was not a sophisticated
computer user; he exploited vulnerabilities of the computer systems using information and methods to
gain access to insecure systems which were widely known and available.

Second, instead of being charged in a juvenile court, where he would have been dealt with speedily and with little publicity, Richard had suffered very public disruption to his career over a period of three
years. He had been punished severely already, through the repeated hearings and frequent alteration of the charges against him, extensive media and public interest in him and the case, and confiscation of equipment and material being used for his A-level studies.

Third, he had received excellent character references, had no previous convictions and had co-
operated with the police throughout.

The sentence After hearing the evidence, Mr Bartle accepted Richard’s plea of guilty. He rejected the option of a custodial sentence, on the grounds that it would be excessive in the light of the offences committed. He also rejected the option of a Community Service Order, on the grounds that it would have interfered unfairly with his music studies. Instead, the magistrate opted for a fine, at GBP 1,200 set at a level which takes account of Richard’s financial circumstances as a student (notably the fact that he receives a means-tested local authority grant). He also ordered him to pay GBP 250 towards costs.

Mr Pryce was represented in Court by Mr Martin Hicks, lead by Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC. Mr Geoffrey
Robertson, QC said: “The sentence handed down in this case should not be
misconstrued or interpreted in a way that suggests that the Courts do not take “hacking”, and its
effect, very seriously indeed. The particular combination of circumstances – the age of the
defendant, the delays in the prosecution process and the co-operation given by Richard – all contributed to the sentence which, in the circumstance, is just and fair. However, it should also be said that the case against Richard has been blown out of all proportion by the police, politicians (particularly in the United States) and the media, for reasons which have nothing to do with the facts of the case.

We are pleased that the magistrate saw reason and accepted our plea in mitigation. Richard has already paid heavily for what was, in effect, a schoolboy prank. It was not his fault that security systems in the computing and defense industries left something to be desired.

Mrs Pryce, Richard’s mother, said: On behalf of my son and the family as a whole, I would just like to say that we are relieved this is all over and very much hope that Richard will now be allowed to get on with his studies at the Royal College of Music. He has had a very tough time for nearly three years – despite accepting his guilt for the offences with which he was finally charged and his willingness to co-operate with the police – and would now like to put it all behind him.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Richard Pryce
Richard Charles Vaughan Pryce was born on 26 May 1977. He lives with his parents, Nick and Alison, and his two sisters, Sally (aged 17) and Katie (aged 15) in Kingsbury, North London. His father and mother run their own business restoring musical instruments.

In September 1995, Richard started his studies at the Royal College of Music, where he has been awarded a scholarship following auditions at the Royal College.

He is an accomplished double bass player: he was the youngest member of the Brittan Pears orchestra and has toured in the UK and Europe with other orchestras.

At the time the offences were committed, Richard was
a pupil at Purcell School, Harrow in Middlesex. He
took his A-levels in 1995 (receiving an A in music
and a D in computer science).

The Computer Misuse Act 1990
Under Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, it
is a criminal offence to cause a computer to perform
any function with a view to securing unauthorised
access, knowing at the time that that is the case.
The maximum sentence for an adult on conviction is
six months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding GBP
5,000 or both.

Under Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, it
is a criminal offence to do any act which causes
unauthorised modification of the contents of a
computer with intent to impair its operation, prevent
or hinder access to a program or data, or to impair
the operation of a program or the reliability of any
data. Where the matter is dealt with in the
Magistrates’ Court, the maximum sentence for an adult
on conviction is six months imprisonment or a fine
not exceeding GBP 5,000 or both. Where the matter is
tried on indictment in the Crown Court, the maximum
sentence for an adult on conviction is five years
imprisonment or a fine (unlimited) or both

CONTACT: Fenella Gentleman, marketing communications
manager, Lovell White Durrant
Tel: +44 (0)171 236 0066
e-mail: fenella.gentleman@lovellwhitedurrant.com
WWW: http://www.lovellwhitedurrant.com

*M2 COMMUNICATIONS DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY FOR
INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN M2 PRESSWIRE. DATA
SUPPLIED BY NAMED PARTY/PARTIES.*

Copyright ? 1997 M2 Communications, Ltd., All Rights Reserved.

LOVELL WHITE DURRANT: Richard Pryce fined GBP 1,200 for offences under the computer misuse act 1990., M2 PressWIRE, 03-24-1997.

View Previous Article View Article Index View Next Article