This is one of the seminal cases in computer crime law. The defendants, Gold and Schifreen, obtained uauthorised access to the BT Prestel Computer network. A creative piece of prosecution led to them being charged with offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 'making a false instrument', namely a 'device on or in which information is recorded or stored by electronic means with the intention of using it to induce the Prestel Computer to accept it as genuine.'

The 'false instrument' was the computer record created when they accessed the computer by modem, and logged in using a false identity, with code and password. Was this 'control area' a device under the Act? It had no physical identity. The defendants argued that the meaning of section 8 (1) (d) which refers to information 'recorded or stored … by electronic means' was intended to refer to some kind of long term, semi-permanent storage. The area of chip affected by their input was purely temporary storage.

Their lordships said that the words were to be given their normal and natural meaning. They referred to processes of a continuous and lasting nature. The Crown's case required an interpretation which meant only such time as was appreciable, and was required to perform the purpose of the storage.

Their lordships were not uncomfortable with the result which was that the prosecution failed. The prosecution had, they said, made a Procrustean attempt to force the facts uncomfortably into an Act which was not designed for the purpose.

And thus was created the final compulsion to create the Computer Misuse Act 1990. I have to say also that junior counsel for the defence, Alistair Kelman, is one of the (well, my) heroes of this area of law.