So, the act states an individual has to know the access is "unauthorised". How is this proven by the state? Of course, for a simple act like entering a username/password that they know they're not supposed to be in control of is easy.
But, what about more complex cases? If, say, there is a dispute about whether access is or isn't authorised, and one party(Say an employer) has given another a password, without any existing evidence anymore, how do they prove this? Do they just take the general approach of 'Would a reasonable person deem this as unauthorised'?
Does external evidence get taken into account, for example, conversations indirectly linked to the account? Or would, say, a lack of explicit links to a password be deemed as unauthorised?
To clarify: My question was essentially how is it proven? For theft, there is the 'would a reasonable person deem is dishonest'. Whereas, there's no real evidence of what test there is for unauthorised. How do they determine the mens rea? However, there was also an element, I suppose, which was what elements can be shown as a a defence that the access was authorised? Would it be solely explicit statements saying 'You have access to the computer'. Or would various implicit statements also be used?