03/02/2020 HKSAR v. CHAN YAU HEI [2014] HKCFA 18; (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110; [2014] 3 HKC 52; FACC 3/2013 (7 March 2014) (Joseph Fok) Permanent Judge (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe) Non-Permanent Judge MrMartin Hui SADPP, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr Wong Hay Yiu, instructed by Tang & Lee, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Appellant [1] This is the same forum as that with which Oriental Press Group Limited and Ors v Fevaworks Solutions Limited & Anor, unrep., FACV 15/2012 (4 July 2013), was concerned: see §§12-15. [2] In ESCC 3628/2010, before Mrs Adriana Tse [3] In HCMA 42/2011, before Tong J [4] HCMA 42/2011, Reasons for Judgment, 8 December 2011 [5] e.g. Sedley’s Case (1663) 1 Sid 168; R v Crunden (1809) 2 Camp 89 [6] e.g. R v Bunyan (1844) 1 Cox CC 74; R v Mayling [1963] 2 QB 717 [7] R v Lynn (1788) 2 Durn & E 733 [8] R v Anthony Anderson [2008] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 57 [9] R v Laing (2009), The Times, 5.11.09 (cited in Rook & Ward on Sexual Offences Law and Practice (4th Ed., 2010) at §14.25 FN34 and see also, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/26/student-urinated-war-memorial-sentenced) [10] Herring v Walround (1681) 2 Chan. Cas.110 [11] R v Gibson and Sylveire (supra) [12] R v Saunders (1875) 1 QBD 15 at pp.17-19 (in respect of Count 4) [13] Knuller; the advertisements in question inviting readers to meet the advertisers for the purpose of homosexual practices, although the conviction in that case was quashed on the basis that there had been a misdirection of the jury in relation to the meaning of “decency” and “outrage” and the element of publicity required to constitute the offence. [14] Shaw involved a prosecution for, amongst others, the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals arising from the publication of a booklet, the Ladies’ Directory, containing a list of names and addresses of prostitutes. This passage was cited with approval by Lord Simon in Knuller at p.493F. [15] R v Bunyan (supra); R v Wellard (1884) 14 QBD 63 [16] R v Rouverard (unrep.) 1830, Parke B (referred to in R v Webb (1848) 1 Den 338, 344) [17] R v Thallman (1863) 9 Cox CC 388 [18] R v Wellard (supra) [19] See, Rook & Ward at §14.43. The authors also suggest (at §14.47) that the two person rule may be satisfied by the act being experienced in some other way, e.g. by hearing, a point also supported by R v Hamilton at §34. https://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2014/18.html 15/17