— 23 — infringing copies on his computer to appear on the computers of the downloaders, even if the process did not involve the prior creation by his computer of an electronic copy (transient or otherwise). I leave open the question whether such conduct might nevertheless be caught by section 118(1)(f). Conclusion 59. For the foregoing reasons, neither of the objections to the appellant’s conviction succeeds. He plainly succeeded in distributing infringing copies of the films in question and was correctly convicted of an attempt to commit the section 118(1)(f) offence. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed. 60. It follows that it is unnecessary to deal with the respondent’s submission, naturally resisted by the appellant, that if the appeal were allowed, the Court should substitute convictions on the alternative charges upon which the magistrate gave no verdict. 19 Those charges were not pursued before Beeson J and I would, for my part, have been inclined to reject the respondent’s suggested course. As Mr Pun indicates, it is questionable to what extent the magistrate made the necessary findings. Additionally, he points to arguable questions of law, not previously explored, which may well arise in respect of those charges. Lord Millett NPJ: 61. 19 I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ. These were charges of obtaining access to a computer with dishonest intent, contrary to section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.