- 11- by ordinary literate persons at the material time, namely 1959.” Evans L.J in Fellows stated @252F “We respectfully endorse that as the correct approach when as here the question is whether some more recent technical development is within the scope of a statute which was passed before the development took place or at a time when for some other reason Parliament was unlikely to have had the particular development in mind. Given the state of contemporary knowledge, it is possible the statute on its true construction applies only to what was known at that time, but it is also possible that it applies to future developments, not then anticipated, by virtue of the wording that was used.” The court in Fellows concluded that that reasoning was entirely appropriate to the issues in their case and agreed that the 1959 Act had to be interpreted as it was understood by “ordinarily literate persons” when it was passed, and the data stored in the disc was “shown, played or projected” to those who gained access to the archive by means which, though not available in 1959, nevertheless could be regarded as being within the ordinary meaning of those words. On that basis, the court dismissed the appeal. Despite Mr. Grossman’s valiant and superficially plausible argument, I am of the view that the Magistrate was correct in accepting the Respondent’s argument at trial and in adopting the reasoning in Fellows. The definition of article in section 2 of the Ordinance is very