appellant to remove the links from the website (see paragraphs 8-12 c . on pages 4-5 and paragraph 61 on page 33); and HKSAR v Wons Tak Keum (2015) 18 HKCFAR 62. The appellant therein was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs, on the evidence that after a courier bought the drugs in Australia from one of the co-conspirators but later reported that they were stolen, the appellant went to Australia, tortured the courier and demanded that he disclosed the whereabouts of the drugs (see paragraphs 2-6 on pages 68-69). The respondent submitted that the Hong Kong court had jurisdiction over a conspiracy to commit an offence abroad，if, according to the approach adopted in a number of English cases, substantial activities constituting the crime occurred within the jurisdiction, even if other essential elements of the offence also occurred abroad (see paragraphs 38-41 on pages 79-80). The Court of Final Appeal, in holding that the Hong Kong court did not have jurisdiction over a conspiracy to commit an offence abroad，held that the said approach had no application in the ' case where the conspiracy involved the appellant s criminal conduct occurring entirely outside Hong Kong (see paragraph 45 on page 81). E6. Analysis 55. The Respondent and Google LLC submitted that it covers only personal data of which the " control " (used in the wide sense as defined in the Ordinance) takes place in Hong Kong. 46 The Appellant submitted