Download UK Computer Misuse Act: Proposed Changes for EU Directive Compliance and Cost and more Lecture notes Criminal Justice in PDF only on Docsity!
Title: Serious Crime Bill: Amendments to Computer Misuse Act 1990
lA No: (^) Date: 03/03/ Lead department or agency: Home Office (^) Stage: Final Source of intervention: Domestic Other departments or agencies: Ministry of Justice Type of measure: Primary legislation
Summary: Intervention and Options (^) RPC Opinion: N/A
Cost of Preferred Option Total Net Present Business Net Net cost to business per In scope of One-In, Measure qualifies as Value Present Value year {EANCB on 2009 prices) One-Out? N/A N/A No N/A is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?
EU adopted the Directive on attacks against information <niiifP;;:;;;7?mwffir~rrr.:;-amm;:f?iw'flFhi>l
K is compliant with the Directive save for two points: tools used for committing offences and jurisdrction
relevant legislation in the UK is the Computer Misuse Act (-lEIOOHi'Aef-GemwteriWstll;e-,l\elcEI€tes----i
prevent individuals from obtaining tools such as malware with the intention to personally commit a crime. It also does not enable UK law enforcement agencies to take action against UK citizens mitting cyber crime offences whilst physically outside the UK on the basis of their nationality alone, L
. ' ••·•c.·.. ···-· - '' - Will the policy be reviewed? It will be reviewed. If applicable, set review date: 09/
Does implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? No Are any of these organisations in scope? If Micros not (^) I Micro (^) I < 20. Small^ I Medium I Large exempted set out reason in Evidence Base. No No^ No^ No^ No What is the C0 2 equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions? Traded:^ Non-traded: (Million tonnes C0 2 equivalent) ---·------------ --------~--- ----------- I have read the Impact Assessment and I am sattsfted that (a) tt represents a fatr and reasonable vtew of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy, and (b) that the benefits justify the costs.
Signed by the responsible Minister:
1
~h~~~~e~:~;;~c: j~i;;v:::~~:::da~a~:~~~:rmation Systems as referenced in obj~cti~: one of the
UK Cyber Security Strategy;
- Contribute to the Home Secretary's commitment in the Serious and Organised Crime StrategyJQ ___ _ relentlessly disrupt organised crime; and
- Reduce the threat and impact of cyber crime by ensuring our legislation is up to date and so bring offenders to justice and deter individuals from ·-------- - -- committing cyber offences in the first instance.
What policy options have been-~onsid~;~d, including any alternatives~ ~eg~;lation? Ple~se.justit)I-Prefe~.e" !option (further details in Evidence Base) ·
Option 1. Do nothing. Continue current arrangements under existing law; ~ption 2. Legislate. he preferred option is option 2, legislate: ·.
~e propose to:
Extend section 3A (making, supplying, or obtaining articles for use in offences under sections 1 or 3) of the Act to include an offence of 'obtain for use' to cover the event of tools being obtained for personal use to
commit offences under sections 1 (unauthorised access to computer material) or 3 (unauthorised acts with
intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing operation of a computer etc); and -Extend the existing Extra Territorial Jurisdiction provisions (section 4) of the Act by nationality to provide a legal basis to prosecute a UK national who commits any Computer Misuse Act offence whilst physically outside the UK, where the offence has no link to the UK other than the offender's nationality, provided the offence was also an offence in the country where it took place.
COSTS (£m) Total Transition^ Average Annual^ Total Cost
(Constant Price) (^) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) Low High.. Best Estimate Negligible Description and scale of key monetised costs by 'main affected groups'
.
N/A
Other key non-monetised costs by 'main affected groups' Any increase in prosecutions under the extended offence or by extending jurisdiction for the existing Computer Misuse Act offences would incur costs to police, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Services, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Legal Aid agency and HM prison and probation services. The total cost to the Criminal Justice System is uncertain, but the additional number of prosecutions following the change in legislation is expected to be negligible.
BENEFITS (£m) Total Transition^ Average Annual^ Total Benefit
(Constant Price) Years (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) (Present Value) -~- Low High Best Estimate NK Description and scale of key monetised benefits by 'main affected groups' N/A. Other key non-monetised benefits by 'main affected groups'
- The amendment to include the 'obtain for use' offence will allow police to intervene in an attack before it has taken place, when the offender has procured the malware to use themselves.
- The extension of extra territorial jurisdiction by nationality will cover all offences^ in^ the Computer Misuse Act and therefore provide some extra territorial jurisdiction cover to section 3A for the first time.
- The pan-EU approach means that offenders who may have previously escaped justice due to a gap in legislation or lack of clear legal procedure could be dealt with under clear EU and UK legislation.
Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks.. Discount rate (%) _I, :J~-- There is no evidence available to estimate how many further prosecutions would occur as a result of the change in legislation. Section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act has only had two prosecutions m England and Wales over the past three years and the extra territorial jurisdiction provisions have not been exercised against any Computer Misuse Act offenders.
There is a risk that as the threat of cyber crime develops, and the materials used to commit cyber crime offences becomes more accessible, there could be an increase in offences under section 3A. This has been highlighted in a sensitivity analysis. BUSINESS ASSESSMENT (Opt1on 2)
~-sts: ___________ ___I Benefits: I Net: N/A^ NO^ N/A **Summary: Analysis & Evidence** Policy Option 2 Description: FULL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT lPM~ Base PV^ Base^ I---~·~--Time Period^ Net Benefit (Present Value (PV)) (£m) Year Year (^) Years (^) Low: -fHigh: .. Best Estimate: Negligible - Article 12 of the EU Directive covers jurisdiction and requires Member states to establish their jurisdiction with regards to a cyber offence being committed by one of their nationals. Currently, extra territorial jurisdiction provisions within the Computer Misuse Act cover offences under ### sections 1 and 3 and require the prosecution to show a significant link to the UK. This means that if an individual commits a Computer Misuse Act section 1 or 3 offence, in order to exercise extra territorial jurisdiction and pursue a Computer Misuse Act prosecution in the UK, either the· individual or the affected/intended affected computer needs to be present in the UK at the time of the offence. The offender cannot be extradited on the basis of their nationality alone. In addition, section 3A which was added in 2006, is not currently included in extra territorial provisions. This means that an individual committing a section 3A offence whilst physically outside the UK cannot be easily extradited under the existing Computer Misuse Act provisions to face justice in the UK. In the absence of an amendment, the UK (from individuals up to big business) 1s exposed, and law enforcement agencies will not have the necessary powers to intervene early enough in order to prevent potential criminal damage. Rationale Cyber crime is a risk to our national security and causes significant harm to our society. Government has a role in protecting its citizens and ensuring law enforcement agencies have the necessary powers and offences to tackle it Objectives 1. Implement the EU Directive on Attacks against Information Systems as referenced in objective one of the UK Cyber Security Strategy; 2. Contribute to the Home Secretary's commitment in the Serious .and Organised Crime Strategy to relentlessly disrupt organised crime; and 3. Reduce the threat and impact of cyber crime by ensuring our legislation is .up to date and so bring offenders to justice and deter individuals from committing cyber offences in the first instance. Options There are two options that have been considered: 1) Do not amend UK legislation and continue current arrangements under existing law. If we do not extend section 4 to include extra territorial jurisdiction by nationality and extend the offence under section 3A to include obtain for use, the identified gaps in legislation would remain. In addition, the UK could face infraction proceedings as we would not be transposing the EU Directive fully into UK law. It could therefore eventually be referred to the European Court of Justice. If the Court rules that the UK has failed to comply with its obligations under EU law, it could face a minimum lump sum fine of £7.9 million. The UK could also face daily fines until it is seen to be compliant 2) Amend domestic legislation to fill identified legislative gaps and bring the UK legislation in line with the Directive. This option would involve the following amendments to the Computer Misuse Act 1990: a) Amend section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act to include reference to 'obtain for use'. b) Extend sections 4 and 5 of the Computer Misuse Act to include extra territorial jurisdiction by nationality so all Computer Misuse Act offences are covered, including section 3A Appraisal (Costs and Benefits) Option 1: Do nothing Potential infraction costs with a minimum lump sum fine of £7.9 million. There are no identified benefits. Option 2: Amend existing legislation Groups affected Apart from the individuals who would be prosecuted under the new offence or extended jurisdiction for all offences, the main groups affected by the policy would be: - The Police: we predict there could be a small increase in the number of investigations and arrests. - Ministry of Justice: any increase in arrests could. mean an increase in the number of cases that enter the JUStice system. - HM Courts and Tribunals Service: any increase in cases entering the justice system is likely to increase the administrative burden on the courts. - Crown Prosecution Service: any increase in cases entering the justice system means a likely increase in the number of cases being presented to the courts. - Legal aid: there will be an impact on legal aid with the increase in the number of offenders arrested and proceeded against. - HM Prison Service: any guilty verdicts resulting in a custodial sentence will impact on prison places. - Probation service: there will be an impact from offenders sentenced to probation. - Extradition bodies: agencies and officials dealing with extradition may see a small increase in workload. Monetised costs: There are no expected costs to business from this option. It is 1mportant to note that the below costs should be viewed as opportunity costs. The additional costs created by this option to the Criminal Justice system may be absorbed within existing resources. _Training costs_ All police will need to familiarise themselves with the new regulations. The College of Policing ensure that all new legislation is incorporated into the National Policing Curriculum as matter of course, and falls within existing budgets. The additional cost of training for this policy is therefore expected to be negligible. _Ongoing costs_ Amending section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act to include 'obtain for use' This is a future proofing policy and we expect very few additional prosecutions to come from it. Between 2006, when section 3A came into force, and 2012 there have only been two prosecutions under section 3A and only one found guilty. 2 Following consultation with the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, we have not found any evidence to suggest that there would be a significant increase in cases due to the new offence. As we do not expect many cases we have not given a monetised benefit, however we have demonstrated what the costs would be.lt would be disproportionate to analyse the costs in more detail than this. The Ministry of Justice have provided estimates of the weighted cost to the Criminal Justice System per proceeding under the amendment of 'obtain for use'. ### 2 Further br~akdown of Criminal Justice Statistics publication. MoJ ---- Criminal Justice System Agency~ Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service · Crown Prosecution Serv1ce Legal Aid Prison Probation Weighted costper case Lower cost estimate (using average Computer Misuse Act offence as a proxy') £1, £150, £4, £6, £1, £163, Upper cost estimate (all cases tried in a Crown Court)^10 £1, £150, £7, £76, £ £235, ### Lower bound for extra territorial jurisdiction = £163k per case For the lower bound estimate, data from 2012 for all offences contained within the Computer Misuse Act was used to estimate a weighted costper case. Given that all Computer Misuse Act offences are triable either way, data about the numbers tried in each court for all Computer Misuse Act offences was used to estimate the proportion of people tried Magistrates and Crown Court. Data from 2012 shows that approximately 41% of Computer Misuse Act cases were tried in the Magistrates Court and 59% in the Crown Court. Data also shows that across all Computer Misuse Act offences approximately 30% of offenders are sentenced to immediate custody and 50% to community orders and suspended sentence orders. It is assumed that this will be the same for any future Computer Misuse Act offences committed outside the UK but prosecuted in the UK by extending jurisdiction. ### Upper bound for extra territorial jurisdiction = £235k per case For the upper bound estimate we assume that all cases progress through the Crown Court. We assume that all proceedings result in a custodial sentence. To estimate the custodial sentence length we use data from 2012 to indicate the maximum custodial sentence awarded across all Computer Misuse Act offences. From 2002-2012 the longest custodial sentence awarded for a Computer Misuse Act offence was 60 months. 11 It is assumed that any cases prosecuted in the UK through extending jurisdiction will have the same custodial sentence length. Note that the UK is likely to extend jurisdictiorJ, only in cases where the offence committed is deemed serious or if prosecution in the UK is in the public interest If the cases tried by extra territorial jurisdiction are more complicated or longer than domestic Computer Misuse Act offence trials, there is a risk that even the upper cost estimate underestimates the cost per case. For example, in highly complicated ### cases the Legal Aid costs alone could be up to £1m 12. See the risks and assumptions in Annex A for a full outline of all the caveats. There are other costs to the Criminal Justice System associated with extra territorial jurisdiction cases that are additional to usual cases where the offence is committed and tried domestically. These have not been monetised in this impact assessment but are outlined in Table 3 below. Table 3: Additional costs for cases involving extra territorial jurisdiction -----.~~~~------------------ Costs of extra terri!oria IJuri=s.,d,_,ic=-=t,_,io:.:cn.:______-+D~e=s=c'-'rirP-c;ti-=ocon'-----c-----c-c------;c--~--;-;----l Police Transportation and evidence. A previous Home Office Impact Assessment on Human Trafficking estimated that these additional costs of gathering and transporting evidence/witnesses from overseas in extra territorial jurisdiction cases could ----------------- be around £20,000 per case.^ ·::----:-o-------- Crown Prosecution Service Liaising with other authorities, familiarising themselves with processes and procedures relating to another country as well as, in a small -- --------------~--- number^ of^ cases, paying for UK prosecutors to (^0) All costs are in 2012/13 prices and are rounded to the nearest 100. (^9) Numbers may not add due to rounding (^10) Ibid. (^11) For the offence of unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences (CMA S.2) (^12) MoJ internal analysis 2014 I ---------------------------------------~--- travel overseas to assist with the case or to facilitate the execution of a request for mutual legal -~---,-----e-----------------------t-c:~=-"'-"-;-;--;-----~~^ assistance --~ -~ ~-~ -------- Court costs Cases may take longer than normal e.g. time taken -~~~~----------·----------------------+-=t~o_,g"'a"'t,h~~e,_,_r evidence. ~ ---------~-- _.. ---~-----~- Judicial review There may be a very small number of cases in which a decision not to prosecute when the UK has extra territorial jurisdiction over the offence is ~! challenged by way of a judicial review. Such cases will incur costs for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts but (as of June 2012) there have been no instance where the argument has been successfully made that where domestic prosecution is an option it should be the preferred I-=----;----------------- ---------------+one. ·~--~-----·· _~~------ _____ _ Fine enforcement costs If the fines are not paid, there may be additional ~~-------------- ---------------------- enforcement costs associated with them.-~------~- --- --~ ~- ### Monetised benefits: #### N/A ### Non"monetised costs: #### N/A ### Non-monetised benefits: As the UK becomes more reliant on technology, and thus more vulnerable to cyber crime, the benefits of this policy will become more significant over time. Police will be able to intervene when a person obtains an article such as a trojan (malware) to use themselves with the intention of committing a CMA offence, before the actual cyber attack takes place. Therefore the benefit will be fewer cyber attacks occurring. · For example, a person may obtain malware to gain access. to another persons computer to directly enable theft of financial information directly as opposed to with the intention of supplying that malware to a third party. Under the new legislation, police can arrest that person for obtaining that malware for personal use to commit a CMA offence, before they gain access to the computer and steal information. By arresting the individual before the information is stolen, a cyber attack is prevented. The extension of extra territorial jurisdiction by nationality will cover all offences in the Computer Misuse Act and the pan-EU approach means that offenders who may have previously. escaped justice due to a gap in legislation or lack of clear legal procedure could be dealt with under clear EU and UK legislation. Furthermore, with the cross-EU implementation, it will also allow for other EU countries to extradite and prosecute their own nationals committing computer offences in the UK. Implementing the EU Directive has a number of non-monetised reputational benefits: - maintains the UK's position as a world leader in the field of combating cyber crime and cyber security; - reinforces the message that the UK is a pre-eminent safe space for individuals and businesses to operate online; - the UK will continue to set the precedent for creating strong and robust legislation to prosecute and punish cyber criminals; - encourages other countries to introduce robust legislation in this area; and - provides a consistent approach across Europe. ### __________________ _ ### Annex A: Assumptions and risks/limitations of Criminal Justice costs ### l--=------c -~-----=--=-A-ss--u-m-p--:t-:-io_n__________ ]____ ~--R-~---s~s/Limi-ta-t-io_n_s____ _ ### Progression of a case through the courts (e.g., proportion proceeded against in the Magistrates v. ### Crown) ### Section 3A offence ### In the absence of robust proxy data for the new ### offence of procuring malware for personal use to ### commit offences under section 1 or 3 of the 1990 ### Computer Misuse Act, two scenarios were ### estimated. One where all cases progress through the ### Magistrates court and the other-where all progress ### through the Crown Court. ### Extension of extra territorial jurisdiction ### For the lower cost estimate, data from 2012 was ### used across all four Computer Misuse Act offences ### to estimate the proportion of cases tried in the ### Magistrates and Crown Court. ### For the upper cost estimate it is assumed that all ### cases progress through the Crown Court. This is to ### cover the risk that jurisdiction will only be extended ### for more serious crimes, where proceedings are ### likely to occur in the Crown Court. ### Source: MoJ internal analy_1l_is, 2013. ### It is unlikely in reality that all cases will progress ### through one court. ### There is a risk that more/fewer offenders may be ### tried in the Magistrates' Courts or the Crown Courts ### Proportion sentenced to immediate custody and average custodial sentence length ### Section 3A offence - In^ the absence of robust proxy data for the^ new ### offence, 'worst case scenarios' were estimated ### by assuming that all those proceeded against are ### sentenced to immediate custody and that the ### offender receives the maximum sentence ### possible; that is 6 months if tried in the ### Magistrates Court and 2 years if in the Crown ### Court. ### Extension of extra territorial jurisdiction - For the lower cost estimate data from 2012 was ### used across all Computer Misuse Act offences. ### Data shows that approximately 30% of all ### Computer Misuse Act proceedings resulted in a ### custodial sentence and that the average ### custodial sentence length given was ### approximately 18 months across all cases, in all ### courts. - For the upper cost estimate, it is assumed that ### all those proceeded against are sentenced to ### immediate custody. To estimate the custodial ### sentence length we use data from 2012 to ### indicate the maximum custodial sentence given ### across all Computer Misuse Act offences. From ### 2002-2012 the longest custodial seQtence_g_i_\/~n ### There is a risk that fewer defendants will be ### sentenced to immediate custody. ### There is a risk that the average custodial sentence ### length given will be shorter. ### There-. is a risk that jurisdiction will only be extended ### in the most serious cases and that the average ### custodial sentence length given could be higher. ### Assumption Risks/Limitations -c---;;------ ### for a Computer Misuse Act offence was ### 50 months (for the offence of 'unauthorised acts ### with intent to impair or with recklessness as to ### impairing, operation of computer'). It is assumed ### that the custodial sentence length for cases ### where jurisdiction is extended will be the same. ### Source MoJ interna_l_an§ll~S, 2013 ### Crown Prosecution Service costs ### Section 3A offence ### The key limitation of the Activity Based Castings ### model is that it is built purely on staff time and ### consist of two broad categories, advocacy costs - The estimated Crown Prosecution Service costs ### excludes accommodation and other ancillary costs ### and Activity Based Castings. The primary (e.g.^ those associated with complex cases and ### purpose of the Activity Based Castings model is witness care). It also relies^ on^ several assumptions. ### resource distribution, and has several limitations This could mean there is a risk that costs are ### (see risks). The costs reflect the different Activity underestimated. For further information about how ### Based Castings and advocacy costs for guilty Crown Prosecution Service Activity Based Castings ### plea, cracked and effective trials. costs are calculated please see the following Crown ### Prosecution Service guidance (Crown Prosecution ### Source: MoJ internal analysis, 2013 Service, 2012): ### http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/finance/abc guid ### e.pdf. ### Extension of extra territorial jurisdiction ### Extra territoria.l jurisdiction cases are likely to be - The estimated Crown Prosecution Service costs complex, which impacts on the preparation of the ### consist of two broad categories, advocacy costs case. Each case will be treated on its merits, and ### and preparation of case costs; these are based there is a risk thatthe Crown Prosecution Service ### ·on Crown Prosecution Service experience in costs could be higher or lower. ### . prosecuting extraterritoria_ljurisdiction cases. ### Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service costs (Magistrates' Courts) ### Timings data for offence categories: ### To generate the costs by offence categories, Her ### Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service timings data • The timings data are based on the time that a ### for each offence group were applied to court costs legal advisor is present in court. This is used as a ### per sitting day. Magistrates Court costs are £1,200 proxy for court time. Please note that, there may be a ### per sitting day in 2012/13 prices. A sitting day is difference in average hearing times as there is no ### assumed to be 5 hours. timing available e.g. when a District Judge ### (Magistrates Court) sits. ### Source: Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service ### costs are .based on average judicial and staff costs, • Timings do not take into account associated ### found at Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service admin time related with having a case in court. This ### Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13. Her Majesty's could mean that castings are an underestimate. ### Courts and Tribunals Service timings data from the There is some information is available on admin ### Activity based costing model, the Timeliness time, however we have excluded it for simplicity. ### Analysis Report data set and the costing process. - The timings are collection of data from February ### 2009. Any difference in these timings could influence ### castings. - The data also excludes any adjournments ### (although the Activity Based Castings model does), ### and is based on a case going through either one ### guilty plea trial (no trial) or one effective trial. ### However a combination of cracked, ineffective and ### effective trials could occur in the case route. As a --- ------ ### ____ --- ------ ----- ------ -- --------- ;-; -- ~-~---- **Assumption Risks/Limitations** ### In cases where jurisdiction is extended, there is · the risk that cases involving other jurisdictions may. take longer for several reasons, such as problems/delays in gathering evidence from overseas and the need for interpreters. This would _t~otentially result in higher costs. **Legal aid costs** ### Assume an eligibility rate of 50% for cases in the Magistrates' Courts and 100% in the Crown Court The average legal aid cost in the Magistrates assumed is approximately £400, and £5,000 in the Crown Court (based on Crime Lower Report and Crime Higher Report, Legal Aid Agency). Used an average cost including all offence types from the dataset that incl\.ldes both standard and non-standard fees to estimate the cost to the Lega I Aid Agency. ~-~------~^ ~^ -~ ### There is a risk that variance in the Legal Aid eligibility rate assumed for cases in the magistrates' courts would impact the castings. Assuming 100% eligibility for Legal Aid in the Crown Court carries several risks. Firstly, an individual may refuse legal aid. Secondly, an individual may contribute to legal aid costs. Lastly, the size of this contribution can vary. This could mean that the castings provided are a slight overestimate. There is a risk that the cost could be higher for specific new offences where Legal Aid is paid under the more expensive non standard fee scheme. This is particularly true of cases prosecuted in the UK by extending jurisdiction, where the offence may be more serious or complicated to prosecute. As such the Legal Aid costs could be significantly higher in extra territorial jurisdiction cases. **Pr ison costs** ### Assume that 50% of a prison sentence over 12 months is served on probation and that there is no element of licence for a sentence under 12 month s. The proportions of offenders who are sentenced to probation are determined by the proportion of thos e who receive an over 12 month sentence. Assume that half the given average custodial sentence len gth is served. The cost per prison place is £28,000. Source: National Offender Management Service management accounts addendum (2011 ). The cost of additional prison places is also dependent on the existing prison population, as if there is spare capacity in terms of prison places then the marginal cost of accommodating more offenders will be low due to existing large fixed costs and low variable costs. Conversely, if the current prison population is running at or over capacity then marginal costs may be significantly higher as contingency measures will have to be found. ---· **Pro bation costs** ### Assume that suspended sentences are broadly similar to community sentences. Costs for probation and community sentences are approximately £2,600 per year in 2012/.13 prices. The probation costs are based on national costs f or community order/ suspended sentence order, faun d at National Offender Management Service, Proba lion Trust Unit Costs, Financial Year 2012-13. Source: MoJ internal analysis, 2013. ~--------~ --~--------~ ### There is a risk that Suspended Sentence Orders could ultimately be more costly than community sentences if an offender breaches conditions of their suspended sentence and receives a custodial sentence. Costs represent the national average fully apportioned cost based on delivery by 35 Probation Trusts in 2012/13. Unit costs are calculated from the total fully apportioned cost of relevant services divided by starts in that year and do not consider which elements of cost are fixed and which will vary based __on _service volumes. Major changes to the volume, I ### Assumption Risks/Limitations --~~~- -~-- ### length or content of community sentences or the. ### characteristics of the offender population could affect ### ·the unit cost. ### The costs consist of costs for both (a) managing the ### sentence and (b) delivering court-ordered ### requirements. Excludes centrally managed contract ### costs for Electronic Monitoring and Sentence Order ### ~------~-_j__:_A"'tt=endance Centres.
