由此 -5- A B C D E “money” or “LQ”, or that what he was confirming was the price that had been agreed previously over the telephone. 10. It was suggested that the Appellant had never said, “1200 LQ is it fine for you?” nor “Is it going to be done?” but PW2 denied that. The A B C D E Appellant gave evidence as to admissibility, but did not give evidence or F G call witnesses on the general issue. It was her position that PW2 should have known the prices that she charged and the services she offered, from F G her website. She denied that it was she who had taken the initiative to tell H I him about “bathing” or “doing it”. She said that she would not have said that because “that would be annoying to others” and “they would not H I accept that.” She agreed with the prosecutor’s suggestion that it was open J K J to her or the witness to change their mind at any time before completing the transaction. It was suggested that if that were so it would be necessary K to confirm any arrangement that had been made or suggested, at the L L meeting. The Appellant claimed that she did not want the public to hear M what was said. M N N 11. O P Q R The Magistrate had to decide only two matters. If what the witness said about the conversation at the MTR exit were true – did it amount to soliciting? If so had the soliciting occurred in a public place? 12. O P Section 147(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200: Q “(1) A person who in a public place or in view of the public – R (a) solicits for any immoral purpose; or (b) loiters for the purpose of soliciting for any immoral purpose, S S T T U U V V