|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
South African Law Commission |
[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]
2.1.1 When one considers the criminalisation of unauthorised accessing of computers and the unauthorised modification of computer data and software applications, there are three questions to be answered. The first is whether the unauthorised accessing of computers and the unauthorised modification of computer data and software applications should attract a criminal sanction. In other words is it justified to sanction these actions with criminal penalties? Secondly, if it is accepted that they should lead to criminal liability, is it necessary to create new offences to criminalise these actions? Thirdly, what provision should be made for the investigation and prosecution of such offences, given the unique nature of electronically stored information?
2.2.1 Computers are playing an integral part in the functioning of our society. They are used not only as sophisticated repositories for vast amounts of information but also in operational roles. In these roles computers are relied upon to perform functions upon which human life as well as the economic and industrial functioning of society are dependant. Computers are used, for instance, as instruments in the administering of systems supporting medical treatment, transport control systems, banking and financial systems, communication systems, and national security. The potential danger if computers performing these functions are interfered with is very serious.
2.2.2 As technology advances the risk of computers either becoming the instruments of crime or the targets thereof increases. Consequently computers are becoming particularly vulnerable to crime because of a number of factors: The storage capacity of computers is increasing rapidly. This allows for the centralisation of large amounts of information. More and more computers are connected to open networks such as the Internet. This can allow the transfer of information between systems spanning the globe. Another factor which adds to the vulnerability of computers is the increased ability to develop software applications that can provide access to systems or cause damage to stored information.
2.2.3 The potential danger which interference with the functioning of a computer holds, coupled with the increased vulnerability of computers to such interference seems to provide sufficient policy grounds for the criminalisation of the actions by means of which information can be obtained from a computer or its functioning be interfered with.
2.2.4 There are a multitude of methods by means of which information can be obtained from a computer or its functioning be interfered with.[1] It would be a very difficult task to describe the elements of each method in order to develop an offence for each. The common denominator among all of these methods is the obtaining of access to a computer without the requisite authority, and this seems to be the basis for the justification for the point of view that unauthorised accessing of a computer should be punishable.
2.2.5 The unauthorised entering of the personal domain of a person is prohibited in respect of physical concepts such as a premises or a building.[2] This personal domain also includes a person’s privacy, and therefore an invasion of privacy can lead to criminal liability.[3] It is submitted that in our modern society this personal domain should be extended to include information which is of personal or economic value and which is stored in electronic format.
2.2.6 The potential danger referred to earlier[4] becomes especially relevant when one considers the unauthorised modification of computer data and software applications. This potential danger therefore seems to provide sufficient justification for the criminalisation of such modification of computer data and software applications.
2.2.7 A person’s economic interest in his or her tangible property is protected by offences such as theft and malicious injury to property. The demands of our modern society, however, necessitate that similar protection be given to a person’s intangible interests such as information with personal or economic value stored electronically. This also advocates in favour of the proposition that the unauthorised modification of computer data and software applications should be punishable.
2.3.1 In order to assess whether it is necessary to create new offences to criminalise unauthorised accessing of computers and the unauthorised modification of computer data and software applications, various existing offences will be considered to determine the following two questions:
• can accessing a computer without the express or implied consent of the owner, or the person having control of the computer, be dealt with in terms of our criminal law?
• can the altering of computer data and software applications without the express or implied consent of the owner, or the person having control of the computer, be dealt with in terms of our criminal law ?
2.3.1.1 Malicious injury to property
Definition
2.3.1.2 Malicious injury to property is described as the unlawful and intentional damaging of another’s property.[5]
Elements of the offence
Damage
2.3.1.3 Damage is caused where property is destroyed, lost, permanently damaged or damaged to such an extent that it reasonably requires repair or that its use is permanently or temporarily interfered with.[6] The damage must furthermore be the consequence of the accused’s actions.[7]
Property
2.3.1.4 The damaged property must be corporeal.[8] The mere invasion of a person’s economic sphere is not sufficient.
Culpability
2.3.1.5 The element of culpability is satisfied if there is intent to do the relevant act and to cause the resulting damage.[9]
Application to unauthorised access to computers or unauthorised modification of data and software applications
2.3.1.9 Even if such an extension is to take place it will only relate to the intentional damaging of information stored on a computer. This will still leave open the question whether negligent damage caused by means of the alteration of computer data or software applications should be visited with criminal sanction.
2.3.1.10 Furthermore it is at this stage difficult to speculate how the concept of “damage” in relation to computer data and software applications may be applied. Will any alteration of computer data and software applications which interferes with the use of a computer or computer network be regarded as an injury to property? Or will the court require proof that alteration of computer data or software applications necessitated repair of that specific computer data or software applications or that the use of that specific computer data or software applications has been permanently or temporarily interfered with?
2.3.2 Housebreaking
Definition
2.3.2.1 Housebreaking is described as the unlawful breaking into and entering a premises with intent to commit a crime.[11]
Elements of the offence
Breaking
2.3.2.2 The element of “breaking" requires the displacement of an obstruction which forms part of the premises.[12] This does not imply that there has to be any physical damage to the obstruction in question.[13]
Entering
2.3.2.3 Entering takes place if any part of the perpetrator’s person or of any instrument which he or she is using is inserted into the premises.[14] The entry must be unlawful, which means that the perpetrator is not entitled to enter the premises.[15]
Premises
2.3.2.4 The premises must be a structure which is or may ordinarily be used for human habitation or for storage of property. [16] The structure does not have to be immovable but it is clear that it must be a physical structure.[17]
Culpability
2.3.2.5 The intruder must have the intent to commit some crime other than the entering itself whilst on the premises.[18] The intended offence must not in itself be contained in the breaking and entering.[19] The intent to commit the offence must have been formed when the breaking and entering took place.[20]
Application to unauthorised access to computers or unauthorised modification of data and software applications
2.3.2.6 The difficulties which one encounters in the application of this offence to the unauthorised accessing of computers relate mainly to the fact that the offence was developed to protect the sanctity of the home against intrusions that involve danger to its inhabitants.[21] The elements of the offence are all developed to function in the physical world.
2.3.2.7 The requirement of the presence of a person in a physical structure excludes the possibility that the offence, in its present form, can be applied to the unauthorised accessing of a computer.
2.3.2.8 Even if the gaining of access to a computer can be equated with the element of entering a premises, one is still faced with the problem that the accessing of the computer will have to be connected to the intention to commit another offence. This may not always be possible since the majority of the actions which may follow the accessing of the computer will not lead to criminal liability.
2.3.2.9 Just as in the case of the offence of malicious injury to property there is no indication that the courts would consider extending the application of the common law offence of housebreaking to the abstract world of computers and the information stored on them.
2.3.3 Protection of intellectual property
2.3.3.1 Copyright in a computer program is protected under the Copyright Act, 1978. Section 11B of this Act describes the nature of copyright in a computer program:
11B Nature of copyright in computer programs
Copyright in a computer program vests the exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in the Republic:
(a) Reproducing the computer program in any manner or form;
(b) publishing the computer program if it was hitherto unpublished;
(c) performing the computer program in public;
(d) broadcasting the computer program;
(e) causing the computer program to be transmitted in a diffusion service, unless such service transmits a lawful broadcast, including the computer program, and is operated by the original broadcaster;
(f) making an adaptation of the computer program;
(g) doing, in relation to an adaptation of the computer program, any of the acts specified in relation to the computer program in paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive;
(h) letting, or offering or exposing for hire by way of trade, directly or indirectly, a copy of the computer program.
2.3.3.2 Infringement of copyright can lead to criminal liability.[22] Section 27(1) of the Copyright Act, 1978, describes when an infringement of copyright will constitute an offence:
(1) Any person who at a time when copyright subsists in a work, without the authority of the owner of the copyright-
(a) makes for sale or hire;
(b) sells or lets for hire or by way of trade offers or exposes for sale or hire;
(c) by way of trade exhibits in public;
(d) imports into the Republic otherwise than for his private or domestic use;
(e) distributes for purposes of trade; or
(f) distributes for any other purposes to such an extent that the owner of the copyright is prejudicially affected,
articles which he knows to be infringing copies of the work, shall be guilty of an offence.
2.3.3.3 The maximum penalty that may imposed on a conviction of this offence is a fine or imprisonment for a period of three years in the case of first offenders.[23] In the case of repeat offenders the maximum penalty is a fine or imprisonment for a period of five years. The fine can amount to a maximum of R60 000 for first offenders and R100 000 for repeat offenders.[24]
2.3.3.4 The Copyright Act, 1978, also provides for civil remedies to address infringements of copyright.[25] The remedies provided for include actions for damages, interdicts, actions for the delivery of infringing copies and any other actions which will be at the disposal of a plaintiff in respect of infringements of proprietary rights.[26]
2.3.3.5 A computer program is defined as "a set of instructions fixed or stored in any manner and which, when used directly or indirectly in a computer, directs its operation to bring about a result".[27] A computer program will be subject to copyright if it is original and if the author is a South African citizen or is domiciled or resident in the Republic or if it is first published or made in the Republic.[28] Copyright initially vests in the author of a work but it may be transferred to third parties.[29]
2.3.3.6 The protection afforded by the Copyright Act, 1978, is very narrowly defined. It is only when one of the actions described in paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 27(1) of this Act is committed in respect of an infringing copy of a computer program that an offence in terms of the Copyright Act, 1978, is committed. This means that criminal liability in terms of section 27(1) of this Act presupposes two elements, namely the existence of an “infringing copy” of a computer program, and the unauthorised distribution of such a copy.
2.3.3.7 The elements of the offence in section 27(1) of the Copyright Act, 1978, do not in any way relate to the gaining of unauthorised access to a computer. They also do not relate to the alteration or destruction of computer data and software applications. Protection of copyright in a computer program is therefore not wide enough to prevent all forms of abuse of computers or the information stored on computers.
2.3.4 Trespass
2.3.4.1 The Trespass Act, 1959, (Act 6 of 1959) creates the offence of entering or being present on fixed property without the requisite permission. Section one of the Trespass Act, 1959, defines the offence as follows:
(1) Any person who without the permission—
(a) of the lawful occupier of any land or any building or part of a building; or
(b) of the owner or person in charge of any land or any building or part of a building that is not lawfully occupied by any person,
enters or is upon such land or enters or is in such building or part of a building, shall be guilty of an offence unless he has lawful reason to enter or be upon such land or enter or be in such building or part of a building.
2.3.4.2 The penalty prescribed by the Trespass Act, 1959, is a fine not exceeding R2 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment. If the provisions of the Adjustment of Fines Act, 1991 (Act 101 of 1991) are taken into account the maximum fine for trespass is R40 000.
2.3.4.3 The Trespass Act, 1959, clearly prescribes two main elements for the offence of trespass: The entering of, or being present on, land or any building or part of a building on the one hand, and the absence of the requisite permission of the lawful occupier, owner or person in charge of the land or building concerned on the other.
2.3.4.4 The element of entering of, or being present on, land or any building or part of a building requires the physical presence of a person on fixed property. This excludes the possibility that the offence, in its present form, can be applied to the unauthorised accessing of a computer.
2.3.4.5 The elements of the offence of trespass do not include the causing of any damage while being present on the land or building concerned. This offence can therefore in no way be applied to the alteration of computer data or software applications.
2.3.4.6 Since trespass is a statutory offence there is no scope for the courts to extend its application to areas that fall outside the ambit of the Trespass Act, 1959. This would clearly be the case if the provisions of the Trespass Act, 1959, were to be applied to the unauthorised accessing of a computer.
2.4.1 The options to be considered for South Africa therefore seem to be a choice between legislative intervention to create certain offences on the one hand, or to leave the matter to the courts to punish such activities by way of extensions to existing common law offences on the other.
2.4.2 There is no indication that an extension of the common law offences is likely. This possibility is dependant on the level of appreciation of the dangers of the relevant activities among the judiciary. It is further dependant upon the willingness of the investigating and prosecuting authorities to prepare a case for prosecution in the hope of convincing a court that a common law offence should be extended to apply to a set of circumstances to which it did not apply hitherto.
2.4.3 This seems to indicate that the option of introducing new offences by way of legislation should be seriously considered.
2.5.1 Introduction
2.5.1.1 In the majority of cases where offences are committed through the use of computers there will be some evidence of the offence to be found on a computer. What needs to be considered is whether the procedural aspects of our law are able to provide the tools necessary to detect, investigate and prosecute such offences.
2.4.2 The Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
2.5.2.1 Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (hereinafter "the Criminal Procedure Act") provides for a general power of the state to search for and seize certain articles. The articles which are liable to be seized are divided into three categories:
2.5.2.2 No limitation is placed on the nature of the article to be seized, as long as it can be included in one of the above-mentioned categories. The purpose of the power to seize articles is to obtain evidence for the institution of a prosecution and to assist the police in their investigation of a case.
2.5.2.3 As a general rule the search for and seizure of the above-mentioned articles must be authorised under a search warrant. A search warrant authorises a police official to search any person identified in the warrant, or to enter and search any premises identified in the warrant.[31]
2.5.2.4 In certain exceptional cases a search may be undertaken without a search warrant. This is when the person concerned consents to the search for and the seizure of the article in question or where the police official, on reasonable grounds, believes that a search warrant will be issued to him or her if he or she applies for such warrant and that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object of the search.[32]
2.5.2.5 It is clear from the use of words such as "article" and "premises" that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are intended to be applied in respect of physical items. This means that the computer itself may be seized under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is doubtful that a warrant can be issued for the search and seizure of specific information contained on a computer.
2.5.2.6 Just like the offences discussed earlier, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act were developed when the idea of a location which is not a physical premises or the seizure of something which is not a tangible object were inconceivable. Although the search of a premises for, and seizure of, a computer itself can be authorised under the Criminal Procedure Act, it is submitted that the same does not apply to the search of a computer and the seizure of information located on that computer.
2.5.2.7 Apart from the application of the Criminal Procedure Act there are other issues in connection with the procedural aspects which must be discussed. These issues are unique to the search for and seizure of information stored on computers and arise from the nature of such information. In the course of this part of the discussion it is accepted for the sake of argument that an investigating officer is authorised to search a computer for certain information.
2.5.3 Other issues related to the unique nature of electronically stored information
2.5.3.1 Computers are increasingly linked with other computers to form networks. A computer network can span a building, a province, a country and even the globe. The interconnectivity of computers makes it possible to store information on a computer situated in a remote location which need not even be in the same country as the computer used to store the information.
2.5.3.2 This raises issues related to the validity of a search by means of which information stored in a remote location is located via a network. Normally a search will be authorised in respect of a specific premises where the relevant articles are suspected to be found. In the case of information stored and accessed via a computer network the physical location of the computer containing that information can be very difficult to determine. If the computer on which the information is stored can be located it may be in a location not referred to in the search warrant. The question now arises whether that information can legally be searched for without obtaining another search warrant. If a new search warrant is required, chances are that the information will have been destroyed or altered or moved to another location by the time the warrant is obtained. Such a requirement will furthermore place a near-impossible burden on investigating authorities to obtain accurate information of the exact location of the computer on which the relevant information is stored before applying for a search warrant.
2.5.3.3 The possibility that information may be stored in remote locations also raises issues related to jurisdiction. If the network spans the areas of more than one magisterial district, for instance, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to decide who has jurisdiction to issue a search warrant in respect of the relevant information. The issue can be further compounded if the information is distributed over a network in such a way that parts of the relevant in formation are located in one jurisdiction and other parts of it are located in another.
2.5.3.4 If the information searched for is stored via a global network on a computer located outside the Republic, issues of international co-operation will come into play. It may be that the country in which the computer containing the relevant information is located rely strongly on the existence of treaties or conventions as a basis for providing assistance to foreign investigating authorities. It is also possible that the system for the provision of assistance in the foreign country is based on onerous formalities. The delays and difficulties encountered in the area of mutual legal assistance will almost certainly provide an opportunity for the relevant information to be destroyed or altered or moved to another location.
2.5.3.5It is very probable that when the information searched for is located, it will be found to be protected by security systems such as passwords and encryption. The question arises whether the authority of the investigating officer to do the search is wide enough to entitle him or her to proceed in attempting to get past any obstacle aimed at preventing access to the relevant information. Apart from this there is the practical question of the methods that may be used to overcome such security measures.
2.5.3.6 One of the main functions of a computer is to store information. This may include information of a private nature or information in respect of which an obligation of confidentiality or secrecy exists. The ability to store information in remote locations compounds this issue as the gaining of access to such a computer may infringe on the privacy of other persons not associated with the offence under investigation. Issues of civil liberties, privacy and confidentiality must be considered in respect of the search for and seizure of information stored on a computer. These issues need to be balanced with the need for the effective administration of justice.
2.5.3.7 Since a computer is capable of storing a vast amount of information it is most likely that the information of interest to the investigation officer coexists with other information which is of no interest to him or her. The collateral information found on the computer may be necessary for the day-to-day functioning of a business. This problem is further aggravated if required information is located on a network file server which is crucial to the functioning of a whole network. In such circumstances it is impossible to remove the computer from the location where it is found.
2.5.4 Admissibility of evidence
2.5.4.1 Where an offence is committed by means of a computer or where the computer itself has been the target of illegal activity (such as where unauthorised access has been obtained to a computer) the evidence needed to prove the offence will be found on the computer in question unless steps were taken to destroy that evidence. This means that in order to prove the relevant offence, either the computer itself or a print-out of the information stored on the computer will have to be produced in court.
2.5.4.2 The general rule of the admissibility of evidence is that evidence is admissible if it is relevant to a matter before court.[33] Relevant evidence is evidence tendered to prove or disprove a fact in issue. To this general rule there are a number of exceptions where evidence will be inadmissible in spite of its relevance, such as the rule against hearsay evidence for example.
2.5.4.3 Apart from the general rules as to the admissibility of evidence there are a number of rules prescribing how evidence should be tendered. As a general rule evidence is produced by calling upon a witness to deliver viva voce testimony under oath in an open court.[34] Evidence can also be tendered in the form of real evidence or documentary evidence. Real evidence refers to objects produced for inspection by the court so that the court may draw some conclusion in respect of a fact in issue. The object itself is therefore evidence.[35] Documentary evidence is evidence, usually a statement in writing, contained in a document which is intended to prove the truth of its contents.[36] The contents of the document are therefore evidence, as opposed to the document itself.[37]
2.5.4.4 Depending on surrounding circumstances, evidence generated by means of a computer can either be classified as real evidence or documentary evidence. Where a computer print-out is simply a reflection of a person’s knowledge stored in an electronic form it will most likely be classified as documentary evidence. Where the evidence represents the result of the processing of a person’s knowledge it will probably be classified as real evidence created by a device.[38] This uncertainty as to the nature of computer-generated evidence raises a number of issues as to how the admissibility of such evidence should be determined. Should the computer print-out be proven to be an original and authentic version of the information it reflects?[39] Should its admissibility be dependant on the proper and reliable functioning of the computer and software applications used to generate the evidence reflected in the print-out?[40] Apart from these issues there are also other, more general, exclusions that may apply, such as that the evidence reflected in the print-out is hearsay for instance.
2.5.4.5 If the issues of admissibility are left out of consideration, one is still faced with the question of how the value to be attached to the evidence should be determined. This will depend very much on the knowledge of the persons producing the evidence - as well as those evaluating it - of computers, their functioning and their capabilities.
2.5.5 Practical implications of these issues
2.5.5.1 The following example of what may be found in practice will serve to illustrate the frustrations that may be caused by the issues discussed above. For the sake of this example it is assumed that obtaining unauthorised access to a computer constitutes an offence in terms of a statutory provision. It is further assumed that an investigating officer has received information that a certain computer located at a specific address was used to commit this offence.
2.5.5.2 The investigating officer obtains authority to search for the computer in terms of a search warrant authorised for that purpose. As a result of the search the investigating officer locates the computer in question. However, the owner of the computer objects to the searching of the computer's storage area for any information, as this is not included in the scope of the search warrant. The owner's argument is based on the fact that the information to be searched for is not an "article" and the computer's storage space cannot be described as premises.
2.5.5.3 The only option open to the investigating officer is to seize the computer itself and to remove it from the premises. This decision may, however, be complicated by the fact that the computer equipment belongs to a legitimate business and that it contains information which is crucial to the operation of the business and which is totally unrelated to the information which the investigating officer is searching for.
2.5.5.4 Another problem that may arise in this regard is that the computer on which the relevant information is located may be a file server connected to a huge network which is used for totally lawful purposes, and without which the network cannot function. In such circumstances it is doubtful that the investigating officer will be able to remove the relevant computer from the premises where it is located.
2.5.5.5 The computer which is the target of the search may be shared by a number of users. In such a case the computer will contain collateral information which is not associated with the search. The users of the computer will object to the removal of the computer as this will deprive them of their legitimate use of the computer.
2.5.5.6 If the investigating officer has the authority to search the storage area of the computer, for instance with the consent of the owner, he or she may find that the information in question is encrypted. The owner of the computer, however, objects to the investigation officer's attempts to de-encrypt the information as this is not included in his or her authority to locate that information. Another possibility is that the information is protected by software that will cause the information to be destroyed if it is not accessed in a specific manner. Again the owner of the computer may object to the investigating officer's attempts to circumvent this software as this is not included in his or her authority to locate that information. The owner may also object to such attempts because the investigating officer's actions may alter some information or the functioning of some software on the computer.
2.5.5.7 If it is accepted for the sake of this example that a search of a computer's storage area can be authorised under a search warrant and that the investigating officer has located the computer in question, he or she may find that the computer is linked to other computers via a network. The perpetrator has furthermore made use of this connectivity of the computer in question to store the relevant information on another computer at a different location which is connected to the same network.
2.5.5.8 The investigating officer is now faced with the problem that the computer which he or she is authorised to search does not contain the relevant information and that he or she is not authorised to search the computer on which that information is contained. By the time a new search warrant is obtained the perpetrator will have moved the information again, or he or she will have altered or destroyed it.
2.5.5.9 Another possibility is that the investigating officer may be unable to determine the location of the computer where the perpetrator has stored the relevant information. This means that the investigating officer is not allowed to search for the relevant information in terms of the search warrant which authorises a search of the computer in question, although it is practically possible to search for that information via the network to which that computer is connected.
2.5.5.10 A third possibility is that the information is stored via the network on a computer located outside the Republic. The investigating officer is now faced with the task of obtaining mutual legal assistance from another country in order to search for the relevant information. By the time all the formalities associated with mutual legal assistance requests have been complied with the perpetrator will have moved the information to another location, or he or she will have altered or destroyed that information.
2.5.5.11 The computer which is the target of the search may contain privileged information which does not relate to the search. The owner of the computer will object to the investigating officer obtaining access to such information in the course of his or her search. It is, however, impossible to locate the relevant information on the storage area of the computer and to sift this from the other information on the computer without accessing all the information on the computer. This may mean that the whole search has to be abandoned.
2.5.5.12 If the investigating officer succeeds in obtaining the relevant information in the course of an authorised search that information must be produced as evidence at the trial of the accused. At this stage the accused may object against the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the correct procedure for its presentation to the court was not followed or that it constitutes hearsay evidence. If the accused accepts the admissibility of the evidence, he or she may attack the value of the evidence because the information obtained from the computer may have been altered by the investigating officer, or because the chain of events leading from the collection of the information to its production in court as evidence have not been preserved.
2.5.5.13 All of these pitfalls indicate the near-impossible task of investigating and prosecuting authorities when faced with computer-related offences.
[1] Such methods can include the duplication of information on a computer, the removal of information on a computer, the alteration of information stored on a computer, the alteration of the functioning of a computer etc.
[2] Section 1 of the Trespass Act, 6 of 1959.
[3] The offence of crimen inuria prohibits the impairment of a person’s dignitas which includes his or her privacy.
[4] Par. 3.3 supra.
[5] Milton 765; Snyman 544.
[6] Milton 771; Snyman 546.
[7] Milton 770.
[8] Milton 771; Snyman 545.
[9] Milton 773.
[10] See par 2.28 supra.
[11] Milton 792; Snyman 550.
[12] Milton 798; Snyman 552.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Milton 801; Snyman 553.
[15] Milton 802; Snyman 553.
[16] Milton 803; Snyman 551; S v Ndhlovu 1963 (1) SA 926 (T); S v Ngobeza and Another 1992 (1) SACR 610 (T).
[17] Milton 804.
[18] Milton 805; Snyman 554.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Milton 806; Snyman 554.
[21] Milton 792; Snyman 554.
[22] Section 27 of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[23] Section 27(6) of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[24] Section 27 (6) of the Copyright Act, 1978 read with section 1 of the Adjustment of Fines Act, 1991.
[25] Sections 24 to 26 of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[26] Section 24(1) of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[27] Section 1 of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[28] Section 2 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[29] Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1978.
[30] Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[31] Section 21(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[32] Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[33] Schmidt 360; Van der Merwe et al 53.
[34] Schmidt 245; Van der Merwe et al 286.
[35] Schmidt 305; Van der Merwe et al 269.
[36] Van der Merwe et al 275.
[37] Schmidt 305.
Schmidt 346.
[39] Originality and authenticity are the general requirements for the admissibility of documentary evidence.
[40] This would be similar to other evidence produced by means of a device such as a speed measuring apparatus.
SAFLII:
|
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/other/zalc/dp/99/99-CHAPTER-2.html