The Law Reform Commission has suggested including defence clauses for cybersecurity professionals and parents when it comes to unauthorised access to programs and data under a proposed legislation.

In a report on Friday, the government-appointed body put forward a slew of recommendations to rein in cybercrimes, including five specific offences and defences for those arrested.

Under the proposals, unauthorised access to programs or data would amount to an offence, as would the illegal interception of computer data.

Other proposed crimes include illegal interference with computer data and systems, as well as making available or possessing a device, program or data for committing a cyber-related offence.

The commission said it would be reasonable and pragmatic to include a specific defence clause for accredited practitioners who act for "a genuine cybersecurity purpose", individuals accessing computer data for research, and those seeking to protect the interests of a child, in relation to the crime of illegal access.

But it stopped short of inserting an express provision to allow individuals to rely on a public interest defence, saying it would be up to the accused to give a "reasonable excuse" to convince the court.

"In our suggested offences, we have kept the general defence of 'reasonable excuse'," said Derek Chan, who chairs the commission's cybercrime subcommittee.

"If the defendant does claim that he [or she] did the access or interference for public interest, he or she would have a pretty high burden to satisfy the court that the whole circumstances – looking at the claim of public interest and what he [or she] actually did – [whether] it could amount to reasonable excuse for what he or she did."

On tackling the involvement of artificial intelligence in cybercrimes, Chan said the proposed legislation's scope would be limited.

"Although artificial intelligence and the way it can be used to commit crimes is obviously an issue, the way we have structured the five suggested offences is such that, if artificial intelligence is used to commit that sort of crime, then that will also be a crime," he said.

"But we haven't extended the analysis to... how do we regulate those who write AI [tools] or those who run the AI models. That would need a separate and wholesale consideration."

The maximum sentence under the proposals in most cases is 14 years in jail.

But when an act of interference was so grave to the extent of endangering the lives of others, anyone convicted of such crimes would face up to life imprisonment.

The Security Bureau said the commission's recommendations would "further refine existing legislation addressing cyber-dependent crimes" as it welcomed the report.

A bureau spokesperson also said the government would conduct a thorough study to see how to follow up and implement the suggestions, while looking to formulate more comprehensive legislation to address challenges from technological advancements.