Stanford made his name when he founded the ISP Demon Internet in 1992.
He sold it to Scottish Telecom six years later for £66 million,
reportedly making around £30 million. The following year, in 1999,
he co-founded Redbus Interhouse which offers co-location and data
centre facilities. Stanford resigned from the company in 2002 after
a disagreement with the company's then chairman, John Porter.
In October 2003, allegations surfaced that Stanford had been
involved in the interception of emails between Porter and Porter's
mother, Dame Shirley Porter, the former leader of Westminster
council.
Stanford, together with another man, George Nelson Liddell, were
charged with offences under the Computer Misuse Act and the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000. The case was
due to come to trial in September 2005, but both men pleaded guilty
at the last minute.
At the time, Stanford's solicitors, Peters & Peters, issued
a statement.
"Mr Stanford pleaded guilty to this offence following what we
regard as an erroneous interpretation of a very complex new
statute," it read. "The Judge’s ruling gave Mr Stanford no option
other than to change his plea to one of guilty."
The strategy was to establish his innocence on appeal. That
strategy backfired yesterday.
At trial, Stanford had sought to rely on a section of RIPA that
gives a defence to a person who intercepts “a communication in the
course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication
system” if either: (a) he is a person with a right to control the
operation or the use of the system; or (b) he has the express or
implied consent of such a person to make the interception.
Stanford said he had gained access to the emails through the
actions of a company employee. That employee, according to
Stanford, had been given administrator access to usernames and
passwords on the email server. He was therefore lawfully
authorised, and through this authorisation was a “person with a
right to control the operation or the use of the system”.
But the trial judge, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, disagreed. He reasoned
that “right to control” did not simply mean that someone had a
right to access or operate the system, but was more specific,
requiring a right to authorise or forbid that operation.
This ruling effectively quashed Stanford’s defence argument – so
Stanford pleaded guilty and pinned his hopes on the appeal
process.
In his application to appeal, Stanford's lawyers argued that
Judge Rivlin was in error. His interpretation made a criminal out
of an employee who had been empowered to operate and use the system
without any restrictions, they said.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal yesterday upheld Judge
Rivlin’s view. It found that, in this context, the right of control
was wider than a simple right to operate or access the system and
to find otherwise would undermine the object of the provision,
which was to protect privacy.
Accordingly, Stanford's application to appeal was refused.
Judge Rivlin had sentenced Stanford last September to six months
imprisonment suspended for two years. He was also fined £20,000 and
ordered to pay £7,000 prosecution costs.
