and Lord Diplock disagreed. But despite the existence of the offence, Lord Simon and Lord Kilbrandon quashed the conviction based on such charge, as there had been a misdirection in relation to the meaning of “decency” and “outrage” and the element of publicity required to constitute the offence. On the meaning of “decency” and “outrage”, Lord Simon said the following in his judgment: “It should be emphasized that ‘outrage’, like ‘corrupt’, is a very strong word. ‘Outraging public decency’ goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people. Moreover the offence is, in my view, concerned with recognized minimum standards of decency, which are likely to vary from time to time. Finally, notwithstanding that ‘public’ in the offence is used in a locative sense, public decency must be viewed as a whole; and I think the jury should be invited, where appropriate, to remember that they live in a plural society, with a tradition of tolerance towards minorities, and that this atmosphere of toleration is itself part of public decency.” (at p. 495 C-D) Although such observation was made in respect of the conspiracy charge, the same should be applicable in considering the overt act which is alleged to outrage public decency. 29. In another English Court of Appeal case, R v Ching Choi No. 9805975 Z4 (computer-aided transcript, decision of the English Court of Appeal on 7 May 1999), the defendant was charged with 6 counts of outraging public decency for filming a lady while she was relieving herself in the lavatory. In determining whether the defendant’s acts could properly be described as lewd, obscene or disgusting, Roch LJ held that the defendant’s acts had to be looked at objectively, applying the standard of “ordinary, right thinking members of the public”. Further, according to the Particulars of Offence in the Charge Sheet, it is the Prosecution case that the Defendant’s act of posting the Messages was one of a disgusting 12