由此 -3- A B C D 5. A There was no dispute about the Appellant’s identity; nor was there any suggestion that the meeting place was not a public place. 6. E This ground alleged that the Magistrate erred in law in ruling that section 147(l)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 applied to the facts of the present case. Further, or alternatively, the Magistrate had failed to properly direct himself as to whether there was a nuisance or annoyance, actual or probable in the present case. F G C D Perfected Grounds of Appeal: “Ground 1 E B F G H H Ground 2 I J K The Magistrate erred in law in failing to consider sufficiently or at all the fact that in substance the Appellant had only solicited on the Internet which is not a public place (the offence thus was not made out). I Ground 3 K The Magistrate erred in law in finding that there was solicitation when the Appellant met the undercover police officer. Further, or alternatively, the Magistrate failed to properly construe the meaning of “soliciting” and thus had found, wrongly, that there was soliciting after they met. L M N Ground 4 O In all circumstances, the conviction was unsatisfactory, or there was a lurking doubt.” J L M N unsafe and O P P EVIDENCE Q Q 7. R S PW1, a police officer, gave evidence about the Appellant’s Internet advertisement and his consequential contact with the Appellant by telephone, MSN and Internet. He agreed that he knew the nature of the R S services that the Appellant offered and that he was trying to convince her T that he could be a customer. He agreed too that he knew the price of such T U U V V