- 7- given a restrictive reading as is shown by section 2(5)(b) of the Ordinance. The Respondent contended that the class of persons constituted by the subscribers of the Internet service provided by Asiaonline Limited and the users of the Internet service in Hong Kong satisfied “public or section of the public”. Respondent referred to, and relied on, the case of Attorney General’s Reference (No.5 of 1980) [1980] 3 All ER 816 and Fellows & Arnold [1997] 1 Cr App R 244 in support of his argument. The case of Fellows and Arnold was particularly apposite in regard to the Respondent’s case. There the Appellant, Fellows, used a computer to store data enabling him to display indecent pictures of children on the computer screen and to produce prints. He established a password so pictures could be accessed through the Internet by those to whom the password was given, who were either vouched for by other password holders, or who provided additional similar data. The second Appellant, Arnold, was a recipient who provided such additional data. Fellows was convicted of four offences of having in his possession indecent photographs of children with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others, contrary to section 1(1)(c) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and of one offence of publishing an obscene article contrary to section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Arnold was convicted of three offences of distributing or showing indecent pictures of children contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Act of 1978.