由此 -4- A B C services and the general location, or locations, where such services would be provided. Later he passed the Appellant’s details to PW2 who arranged A B C a meeting by telephone. D D E 8. It was PW2 who met the Appellant at the MTR station exit. E His account of the conversation that took place between him and the F G Appellant was challenged and its admissibility was assessed by the Magistrate by the way of the alternative procedure. PW2 claimed that the F G Appellant had introduced herself and asked “Is it going to be done?”. PW2 H I understood this to be a reference to making love. He replied “I’m easy. The Appellant continued, “$1,200 for LQ is it fine for you?”, the witness H I replied again “I’m easy”. He then asked the Appellant what was meant by J K “$1,200 for LQ” and she answered “bathing and making love once”. The witness replied, “I’m easy”. At that stage, the Appellant said, “Let’s go to J K San Diego to do it”; again the witness replied, “I’m easy”. The Appellant L L told PW2 to follow her and they made their way towards the San Diego M hotel. M N N 9. O P Q R In cross-examination, PW2 confirmed that he had spoken to the Appellant earlier on the telephone and in those conversations had told her that he had chatted to her online. He denied a defence suggestion that O P he had claimed to be “Sam”, which was the identity assumed online by PWl. PW2 agreed that on the day of the meeting he had left messages for the Appellant on a number of occasions from 5:15 pm onwards and had Q R also spoken directly to her when it was clear that she was going to be late S for the arranged meeting. He denied that it was he who mentioned S T T U U V V