-8view, the magistrate, deciding on the facts as she found them, could not be criticised for her ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the element of dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. The Judge answered all five questions in the negative. The appeal from the magistrate’s decision was dismissed. 8 16. The appellant subsequently applied to Deputy Judge Pang for a certificate under s 32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) that a point of law of great and general importance was involved in his judgment to enable the appellant to appeal to this Court. The Judge, by an Order dated 6 September 2018, certified that the following point of law of great and general importance was involved in the case: “Is the actus reus of the offence under section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 restricted to the unauthorized extraction and use of information from a computer?” 17. On 2 November 2018, the Appeal Committee of this Court granted leave to appeal from the Judge’s decision on the basis that a point of law of great and general importance was involved in the case, namely: “What is the scope of the actus reus of the offence under section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200)? In particular, is it restricted to the unauthorized extraction and use of information from a computer?” The Court also granted leave on the substantial and grave injustice ground, under s 32, for the appellant to contend, subject to the conclusion reached as to the foregoing point of law, that it is reasonably arguable that the finding as to lack of dishonesty was perverse. 8 Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee & Others [2018] HKCFI 1809 [82]-[83].