diff --git a/labs/Extra_CaseStudies/CaseStudys.md b/labs/Session9_CaseStudies/CaseStudys.md
similarity index 100%
rename from labs/Extra_CaseStudies/CaseStudys.md
rename to labs/Session9_CaseStudies/CaseStudys.md
diff --git a/labs/Session9_CaseStudies/Slides.md b/labs/Session9_CaseStudies/Slides.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22cd4a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/labs/Session9_CaseStudies/Slides.md
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+---
+titie:  Case Studies
+---
+
+# Mangham Case:
+## Mangham Case
+
+ - Glenn Mangham,  Sentenced to 8 months for breaking into Facebook
+ - Reduced to 4 Months on appeal
+ - Prior to FB Bug Bounty Program
+   
+## Details:
+
+ - Flaw in a separate subsystem of Facebook, used for puzzles.
+ - Gained Access to an employee account
+ - Accessed Mail Servers and Internal Tools
+ - Estimated cost of $200,000
+ 
+## More Factors
+
+ - Had previously taken part in Bug Bounty programs.
+   - Paid for finding flaws by Yahoo
+ - However, Did not report Flaws to Facebook
+ 
+## Prosecution
+
+>    "This was not just a bit of harmless experimentation - you
+>    accessed the very heart of the system of an international
+>    business of massive size."
+>
+>    "This was not just fiddling about in the business records of some
+>    tiny business of no great importance and you acquired a great
+>    deal of sensitive and confidential information to which you were
+>    simply not entitled... Potentially what you did could have been
+>    utterly disastrous to Facebook."
+
+## Appeal
+
+> “The judge was entitled to conclude that his motive was not to
+> inform Facebook of the defects in the system, but to prove that he
+> could beat the system.
+
+> “In our view, the combination of the aggravating factors and
+>mitigating factors is such that the more appropriate starting point,
+>in our view, would have been six months, reduced to four months given
+>the appellant’s plea.
+
+> “In particular, we would underline the point which the judge
+> mentioned that the information had not been passed on to anyone and
+> there was no financial gain involved.”
+
+# Phone Hacking
+
+## Phone Hacking
+ 
+ - 2005 Leaked information on Prince William
+ - Other Celebrity activities leaked
+ - 2010 - 2011 Investigation
+ 
+## How
+
+ - Default PIN on voicemail messages
+ - Used to access devices
+ 
+## Issues
+
+ - Moral and Ethical Issues
+ - Legal Issues?
+ - Who paid attention to the Laws in the Case study?
+ 
+## Laws Broken
+
+ - Regulation of Investigatory powers
+   - Intercept communication over telecoms, unless legal investigation by security services
+ - DPA
+   - Personal Information 
+ - CMA
+
+# Password Phishing
+
+## Phishing 4 Passwords
+
+ - Which of these did you find most interesting?
+
+## Easy to Guess Passwords
+
+ - Picked a common PW,  "Summer16" 
+ - Gained access to 50 or 800 accounts
+ - Used this to escalate privileges to admin level
+ - What was it about password policy that caused this?
+ 
+## Phishing Via Email
+
+ - Standard method
+ - Learn something about the Organisation
+ - Craft an Email
+ - Wait for it to be clicked
+ - What was the payload here?
+ 
+## Phishing Via Phone
+
+ - Called organisation posing as Partner
+ - Claimed software wouldn't install
+ - Was given admin password to help install process.
+ - Who was at fault here?
+
+
+
+
+
+# Task
+
+## Task
+ 
+ Coursework Preparation time.
+ 
+ In Groups:
+   -  Pick one of the case studies above, or choose your own.
+   -  Research this and look for the elements required for the coursework
+   -  Prepare a short presentation (~5 Mins) on the topic addressing the points
+ 
+## Reminder of the topics needed for the coursework:
+ 
+   - Technical Details of the Hack Itself
+   - Legal and Ethical Issues
+   - Can we think of Similar Hacks that may have happened