Collaborate with other international and regional bodies with a view to identifying best
practice, educational material and training programmes for investigators, prosecutors
and judicial officers.1
4.
Pursuant to this, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Division (LCAD) of the
Secretariat, in conjunction with the Governance and Institutional Development Division
(GIDD), established a multidisciplinary working group (the Group) comprised of individual
experts, academics, representatives of some member countries.2 These experts have
developed legislation and have practical experience, Commonwealth organisations,3 civil
society,4 and regional5 and international organisations6 with remits on cybercrime and
related matters, to deliver the mandate. The Group also drew on existing Commonwealth
anti-cybercrime expertise in the context of the Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative (CCI).
5.
The Group met five times between January 2012 and May 2013 to explore the
various elements of the mandate. After painstaking research and deliberations, the Group
produced a comprehensive report (Annex A).
The Working Group’s Report
6.
The report of the Group is divided into three parts, each addressing one part of the
mandate.
7.
In its first part, the report from the Group considers the nature of cybercrime and the
challenges it poses to member countries. It states that cybercrime poses challenges to
traditional law enforcement techniques due to several factors, including: the speed with
which offences can be committed; the fast pace at which offending evolves into new forms;
and the transnational character of cybercriminal activity. It also notes that cybercrime is a
global concern, as the nature of the internet means that an offender in one jurisdiction can
target any other jurisdiction. A weak link in the chain at any location threatens all countries.
8.
The report finds that the implications of cybercrime in member countries depend on
numerous factors, including size, development indexes and national experiences with
information and communication technologies. It identifies the general implications of each of
these characteristics. For example, small island states may have difficulty training and
retaining the specialist staff needed to form a sustainable cybercrime forensics unit.
Regional offices may provide the answer to this particular challenge.
9.
In its second part, the report recommends that, to tackle cybercrime, the most
effective means of international cooperation and enforcement is an effective national, legal
regime against cybercrime, combined with effective international cooperation.
10.
In considering international cooperation, the Group assessed several formal and
informal international and regional instruments based on specific criteria, including: the
comprehensiveness of the instrument in addressing the different aspects of an effective
cybercrime regime; the practicality and realism of the instrument’s provisions; the extent to
which the instrument addresses human rights and procedural safeguards; and whether the
instrument carries with it relevant support mechanisms. Based on these criteria, the Group
1
Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting Communiqué, 2011 paragraphs 17–19.
Australia, Canada, Tonga, South Africa, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
3 Commonwealth Magistrate and Judges Association (CMJA), Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA)
Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisations (CTO).
4 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), COMNET.
5 Council of Europe.
6 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
2
2