- 5- The Magistrate found that Appellant, by uploading the computer files or electronic data to the Newsgroup, had distributed and circulated the pictures they contained thus “publishing” within S.2(4)(a). Further, since the images could be seen on screen in the process of downloading, they were also shown and projected within limb (b) of section 2(4). He found publication proved. Public or Section of the Public Counsel for the Appellant argued that as recipients had to take an active role to download files and could only receive the transmission of the files privately, they did not therefore form the public, or a section of the public, as contemplated by the Ordinance. The Magistrate found that once the files were uploaded to the Internet, they were available to other Internet users with access, not only to subscribers, e.g. Asiaonline, but to all those who could access the files through other newgroups, whether in Hong Kong or overseas. He found there was no requirement that publication was confined to publication “in public” and considered, with good reason, that the size of the potential group with access certainly constituted the public or section of the public. Appellant’s counsel argued that the Ordinance had come into effect on 1st September 1987, some years before the Internet was established in Hong Kong. At the trial experts called by the prosecution agreed the Internet had been in operation in Hong Kong for about three years prior to the date of the offence, although there was no