Acquittal for lawyers: Unauthorized data access or system error?

Acquittal for lawyers: Unauthorized data access or system error?

A 27-year-old lawyer, who had previously worked as a legal intern at the Vienna Regional Court for Criminal Matters, was on trial in Vienna for abuse of office. The allegation was that he had unauthorized access to personal information from the justice system after being transferred to the State Civil Court. Despite the seriousness of this charge, the defendant was recently acquitted. This reports vienna.at.

The prosecutor described the case as unusual and underlined the important role of legal interns in judicial operations. A crucial point in the proceedings was the fact that the former intern continued to have access rights to electronic files even after he changed his place of work. This unauthorized access was noticed by an experienced criminal judge, who then informed the Higher Regional Court (OLG).

The course of the process

During the trial, the defendant was preparing for his examination to become a judge. His defense attorney, Otto Dietrich, emphasized that his client had not acted with intent to cause harm and was not aware of any guilt. The jury found that no knowing abuse of authority could be proven, which led to a quick acquittal. The judges did not believe that the lawyer did not know that he was accessing the files without authorization.

The defendant had worked as a legal intern for a criminal judge at the beginning of 2023 and explained that he just wanted to learn and had not searched through the file contents. The judge reiterated that neither she nor other judges knew that access to the files was still possible after the internship period. Dietrich pointed out that it was a “system error.”

The legal implications

For the legal assessment of the case, it is important to consider the requirements for abuse of office, as set out, for example, in the OGH ruling of October 6, 2011. In this judgment it was established that for an offense under Section 302 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, which requires a conscious disregard of the authorities, the intent of the actor is also decisive. If data is generally accessible or with the consent of the person concerned, there is no abuse of authority. This could also play a role in this case, as the defendant states that he had no harmful intentions.

The decision of the jury senate is currently not legally binding. The public prosecutor has not yet issued a statement, and an appeal still requires the approval of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (OStA).