nature. As to what amounts to “disgusting conduct”, Roch LJ said the following in his judgment: “Disgusting conduct is conduct which fills the onlooker with loathing or extreme distaste or causes the onlooker extreme annoyance.” 30. I have reminded myself of such high threshold for the offence. However, despite the aforesaid observations, I am satisfied that the act of inviting others to join him in committing a gang rape with the specific modus operandi was an act outraging public decency. Unlike homosexual activities, the display of a controversial artistic exhibit or the publication of obscene literature, which were usually the subject matters involved in similar charges in England, no person of a decent mind, whether in the past, at present or in the future, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world, would tolerate the commission of a crime such as rape, let alone a horrible gang rape in the manner suggested by the Defendant in the Messages. In my judgment, ordinary right thinking members of the public who read the Messages would not merely feel shocked or disgusted but would feel outraged by their contents. 31. No one would disagree that if the Defendant was serious in carrying out the plan if so perceived by the viewers of the Messages, then the Defendant’s act of posting the Messages can be regarded as conduct outraging public decency. Even Madam Wong, the Defence witness, agrees that gang rape is a horrible crime, and it would be scary and disgusting for someone to send out an invitation to commit such a crime. However, Mr. Cheng, counsel for the Defendant, submits that the Defendant only posted the Messages as a joke. As it was the 13