the gang rape or to incite others to do so. I therefore so find. As the alternative Charges 2 and 4 require the proof of a specific intent to commit an offence whilst the Defendant gained access to the computer, the Defendant cannot possibly be convicted for the offence under these charges. The law relating to the offence of committing an act outraging public decency 24. Even if the Defendant posted the Messages with no such intention, he may still be guilty of the offence of committing an act outraging public decency. The object of the offence is to prevent the corruption of mind and the destruction or erosion of values of decency, and so such offence focuses on the nature of the Defendant’s act and its effect on the general public. 25. As far as I understand, there have not been many prosecutions brought in Hong Kong for such offence, and this is indeed the first prosecution relating to the posting of a message on the internet. Hence, it is not surprising that we cannot find any local authorities on such area of the law. However, after reading paras. 21-298 to 21-304 of Archbold Hong Kong 2005, the relevant legal principles for such offence can perhaps be summarized as follows: (i) the offence of committing an act outraging public decency does exist in common law (see: R v Gibson and Sylveire [1990] QB 619, applying the dicta of Lord Simon in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd. v DPP [1973] AC 435 at 493); 9