Allegations in extortion and computer hacking charges against Bruce Kerr aired in court

Rockhampton accused computer hacker and IT business owner told client “pay the (bill) by 2pm today to guarantee uninterrupted access to all of your business systems”.

A Rockhampton businessman accused of extortion and computer hacking claims he was legally allowed to carry out the actions he did against a customer which caused disruption to the customer’s business operation.

Bruce Arthur Kerr, 54, has been charged with one count of extortion – demand with intent to gain benefit with threat of detriment; and one count of use of a restricted computer without consent and cause or intend to cause detriment, damage or gain.

Mr Kerr, who owns and operates Kerr Solutions IT on Musgrave Street in Berserker, was charged on October 8, had his first appearance in Rockhampton Magistrates Court on October 26 and more details about the allegations were revealed during a ‘No Case’ hearing on July 5.

Police prosecutor Clancy Fox handed up to Magistrate Jason Schubert during the hearing a quote dated May 24 and two invoices made out to the complainant Brett Steven Green dated May 17 and May 27, as part of the evidence in the case.

He also handed up nine witness statements, documents about the seizure of a server and mobile phone, recording of a phone conversation between Mr Kerr and Mr Green, copy of a search warrant, body warn footage from the search and email communication between Mr Kerr and Green Steel (Mr Green’s business).

The court heard Green Steel turns over $150,000 per day.

Defence barrister Andrew Hoare said this was a case of a “plain commercial dispute” and did not fit the criteria of an extortion charge.

Barrister Andrew Hoare.

He said his client alleged Mr Green hired him to fix his server and told him”to get it up and running”.

“There was a contract to do ‘whatever is necessary’,” Mr Hoare said.

“The fact that it’s not in writing is neither here nor there.

“It was a direction from the principle that (Kerr IT Solutions) do whatever was necessary to get it (server) up and running.”

“None of the invoices were for future work.”

Mr Hoare said the invoices were hand delivered.

He said the invoice handed over on May 27 had a review payment date of May 27.

The court heard neither invoice had a payment due date but the parties had an original verbal agreement payment date of June 10.

Mr Hoare said by May 24, the relationship between the parties had broken down.

He later said that quote involved a “Suggested Course of Action” for a network upgrade which included prices to purchase or to rent a new server.

“The communication was made unambiguously as at May 24 that the complainant did not wish to continue engaging Kerr IT Solutions,” he said.

“No attempt is made to pay.

“Nor to return any of the hardware which had not been paid for.

“It remained in the possession of the complainant.”

Bruce Kerr issues a warning about the internet scams to look out for.

He said those facts made up the contractual dispute between the parties.

Mr Hoare said due to the contract ending, that meant there was a breach of the terms of the contract.

“The defendant is then entitled to bring the agreement to the end without a waiting time for the performance of each side of the agreement,” he said.

The court heard the alleged extortion element of what happened was when Mr Kerr, in correspondence on May 27, stated: “As per our phone conversation, that is to pay the (the bill) by 2pm today to guarantee uninterrupted access to all of your business systems”.

Mr Hoare said his client ended the access of Mr Green to the server Mr Kerr had installed at Mr Green’s business.

He said data was not a proprietary right – meaning there is no legal ownership of data.

“It is no different to Telstra, upon non-payment, cutting off services to a mobile phone or internet connection,” Mr Hoare said.

The court heard Mr Green alleges he asked Mr Kerr multiple times to stop accessing the server installed at his business and that they had “engaged another firm to audit”, which was what the alleged computer hacking charge arose from.

Mr Fox said the prosecution case was that the contract had not ended and Mr Green did not say he wasn’t going to pay, which meant Mr Kerr did not have the right to cut off access to the server, nor make the threat to do so.

During the playing of a recording from a phone call between Mr Kerr and Mr Green, the court heard Mr Green indicate he wanted his two servers returned to him and he wanted to return Mr Kerr’s server to Kerr IT Solutions.

During this conversation, Mr Kerr said: “It’ll (the new server) still be running your business 1o times quicker and better than what you had”.

He also told Mr Green he could have his server’s back “anytime you like”.

“You do hold a lot of the cards now,” Mr Kerr said in the call.

“We tried to bloody get some leverage on you because we did do a lot of work. We failed to do that. But I’m just … I really regret the whole f---ing thing. But we’ve had a massive end of financial year, we’ve been flat out. I was hoping that I would hear from you or that you would answer a call, whatever, … I hate this bad blood.”

Mr Green, during the call, said on the day Mr Kerr “threatened to kick us out and I’m booted out of the system at two o’clock”, that he had just wanted some time to think about what was going on.

Mr Kerr apologised, saying “it was a bad decision” and that he was stressed at the time and Kerr IT Solutions had previously had customers who hadn’t paid and he couldn’t “afford a loss like that”.

Mr Fox said due to the discrepancies in whether or not the contract had been terminated before May 27, based on the allegations and evidence before the court, really needed to be decided by a jury.

He said only a jury, by law, could determine the questions on what were the facts in this case.

“If, after careful consideration of any discrepancies, it’s not found are so significant, so fundamental to warrant a conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution is so unreliable and so unsatisfactory that no reasonably instructed jury could convict the defendant … It would be limited to those circumstances where a ‘no case’ submission would be accepted,” Mr Fox said.

Mr Fox said in this case, there was sufficient evidence whereby a jury could convict Mr Kerr of the alleged crimes.

Mr Schubert told the court he was reserving the decision and adjourned for his decision to be handed down on July 15.