414 Chapter 15Regulation of business by the criminal law
There is a need for an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer
program and by so doing:
(i) impair the operation of any computer; or
(ii) prevent or impair access to any program or data held on any computer;
(iii) impair the operation of any such program or reliability of such data.
Section 17(7) defines modification as using any computer so as to alter, add to or erase any
program or data. Therefore, sending computer viruses is clearly within s. 3. The maximum
sentence is five years.
In DPPvLennon (2006)the Divisional Court considered whether ‘mail-bombing’ a
computer amounted to an unauthorised modification of its contents. The defendant, a
16-year-old who had been sacked after three months employment, used an Avalanche V3.6
programme to send half a million emails to his former employer. The emails, which were
sent from different email addresses to try and prevent the employer from stopping them,
were made to seem to come from the employer’s Human Resources Manager. The defend-
ant was found guilty of the s. 3 offence. It would generally be implied that a computer
owner would consent to receiving emails. However, an owner did not impliedly consent
to emails which were designed to interrupt the proper operation and functioning of his
system. Therefore the modification was unauthorised.Competition law
It is generally accepted that competition amongst businesses produces better results than
monopoly. Free competition leads to lower prices, better goods and services and more
choice for consumers as producers are forced to work with ever greater efficiency to main-
tain their position. Consequently, a body of competition law has been created. This body
of law aims to protect consumers and businesses and to ensure that no one producer can
take advantage of its dominant position in the market place. Small producers are given
some protection from their most powerful competitors and mergers may be forbidden. In
the UK there are three main sources of competition law: Articles 81–82 of the EC Treaty, the
Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002. It is not possible in a book of this nature
to examine these matters in any depth.Articles 81–82 of the EC Treaty
Article 81 renders void the following:
(i) all agreements between organisations; or
(ii) decisions by associations of organisations; or
(iii) concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States of the EC;
if they try to prevent, restrict or distort competition within the EU.
This would include matters such as fixing prices, controlling production, sharing markets
and selectively applying disadvantageous terms of trade. Any agreement or decision pro-
hibited under Art. 81(1) is automatically void. (There are some very technical exceptions.)
An example of the effect of Art. 81 can be seen in ICI vEC Commission (Dyestuffs)
(1972). Leading producers of dye introduced identical price increases at identical times for
the three years 1964, 1965 and 1967. It was held that the businesses had colluded amongst
themselves so that the prices were increased at the same time. Customers therefore had no
choice but to pay the increased prices. The businesses were ‘substituting co-operation for
the risks of competition’.