A woman has been acquitted of two charges of unauthorised access of computer materials at police headquarters.

Deputy High Bailiff Chris Arrowsmith threw out the case against Leanne Tara Moore.

The one-day trial focussed on claims that Mrs Moore had accessed unauthorised material while working at police headquarters, which related to a matter not before the court.

It was said by a colleague of Mrs Moore, who is 40 years old, that she had accessed the data on his computer rather than her own when he went to make a cup of tea and left his computer unlocked.

However, the case was thrown out following an application by defence advocate Louise Cooil, who said her client had no case to answer as the police had provided no evidence that the alleged crimes had been committed and that there was ’no chance’ Mrs Moore would be convicted by a jury.

Ms Cooil said the prosecution and the police had not provided evidence that a clear definition of authorised access had been provided to Mrs Moore, that she had received training or that the documents referred to by the prosection were relevant to the case.

She also pointed out that the police had also not been able to locate a contract or signed confidentiality agreement for Mrs Moore from when she had first worked in the emergency services joint control Room (ESJCR).

As part of the prosecution, the court heard from temporary Sergeant Dan Blyth, who conducted the investigation into Mrs Moore, who lives in Berry Woods Avenue, Douglas.

In his evidence, Sergeant Blyth referenced a security awareness training statement of confirmation, signed by Mrs Moore on October 14, 2019, which was used as evidence that Mrs Moore knew what she could and could not access.

However, when asked by Ms Cooil who had signed the form as the trainer for Mrs Moore, it emerged this was a colleague of hers. When asked if he knew if this colleague had any qualifications to train others, Sergeant Blyth said he didn’t and that it was ’not normal for me to be aware of this’.

He later confirmed this person had not provided a statement at any point during the investigation into Mrs Moore.

Sergeant Blyth said that Mrs Moore had signed the document saying she had read and understood both the training given and various regulations and that it was her responsibility to do that.

However, Ms Cooil highlighted that one of the texts was a security policy for ’line-managed and information asset owners’. When she put it to Sergeant Blyth that Mrs Moore is neither, he said the wording on this ’should have been more generic’ and that the policy ’is intended for all employees of the constabulary’.

The defence also went on to question the matter of the force information security policy handbook as the copy presented to the court postdated the form signed by Mrs Moore and the prosecution.

When asked what policy was in force on October 14 when Mrs Moore signed her form, Sergeant Blyth said: ’I don’t know.’

In her application for an acquittal, Ms Cooil highlighted that in the training record form signed by Mrs Moore, the government’s security policy is referenced while the court was presented with the police’s policy.

She also noted the lack of a date or issue number on the constabulary’s policy, no statement being taken from the person who is supposed to have trained Mrs Moore and the lack of clear definition of what is authorised and unauthorised access.

In his judgement, Deputy High Bailiff Arrowsmith said the prosecution had ’not produced any reasonable evidence’ of training or what constitutes authorised access on the police computer system.

And he noted that no copy of a contract of employment had been provided and that the documents referenced in the signed form presented to the court had not been provided as evidence.

Mr Arrowsmith said the evidence provided was ’nowhere near high enough’ for the prosecution to move forward.

He added: ’In my view, the prosecution have wholly failed to provide evidence of authorisation.’

Mrs Moore was acquitted of the charges she faced and the prosecution has been ordered to pay the defence costs.