A A 6 B B (viii) she herself had tried hacking.’8 C D C The Defence Case D E E 7. F In the original trial, the appellant elected not to testify nor call any witness. The key issue was whether the Prosecution can prove F its case. G H G The Magistrate’s Findings I 8. J K H The magistrate accepted PW1’s evidence: It was abnormal for one IP address to make 7,000 odd attempts to browse the police website. He considered it a DDoS attack. The magistrate considered I J K that PW1 was entitled to draw such a conclusion considering his L M qualifications and basic knowledge. He pointed out that although PW1 only said the police website was “much slower” in response than usual as L M a consequence of the continuous DDos attacks on its server without N O P Q computing exactly how much slower, his evidence in this regard was not disputed by the defence. 9. Therefore, the magistrate considered that the circumstance was within the meaning of section 59 (1A) (a) of the Crimes Ordinance, N O P Q i.e., ‘to cause a computer to function other than as it has been established R S to function by or on behalf of its owner’ is ‘misuse of a computer’ that constitutes ‘to destroy or damage any property’. T U V R S T 8 See paragraph 12 of the statement of findings. Not all of the contents of this paragraph is the original of the appellant’s statement, part of them is the magistrate’s understanding of the statement. U V