-7computer] to take upskirt photos of females or using it to send confidential information to others. Unauthorized extraction of information from a computer is but one way of obtaining access to it.”3 The Judge rejected that proposition as one which could lead to absurd consequences. 14. In delivering his decision, which is the subject of the appeal to this Court, Deputy Judge Pang referred to Li Man Wai v Secretary for Justice and the statement in that judgment that: “…the law as it now stands does not punish all kinds of unauthorized access to computers, it only prohibits the unauthorized and dishonest extraction and use of information …”4 He held that to prove the commission of the offence, the prosecution must prove the unauthorized extraction and use of information from a computer.5 The use by the first, second and fourth respondents of their own smartphones to take photographs and to receive/send them by WhatsApp were not unauthorized extractions and use of information from the computer. 6 The use by the third respondent of the desktop computer to create the Word file was not unauthorized and she did not obtain or extract the Word file from the school’s computer system. 15. The Judge’s conclusions on the question of law he had raised made consideration of the five questions in the Stated Case moot. However, he went on to consider them briefly. He held that the magistrate had correctly applied the test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh.7 While the Judge might have come to a different 3 4 5 6 7 Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee & Others [2018] HKCFI 1809 [50]. (2003) 6 HKCFAR 466 [26]. Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee & Others [2018] HKCFI 1809 [68]. Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee & Others [2018] HKCFI 1809 [69]. [1982] EWCA Crim 2; [1982] QB 1053.