-49. Each of the respondents was charged with an offence against s 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The charges against each were in common form, namely: “Obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another, contrary to s 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.” The brief particulars of the offences differed slightly between the respondents and were as follows: “• [The first respondent] on 13 June 2014, in Hong Kong, obtained access to a computer, namely, a Xiaomi smartphone with a view to dishonest gain for another. • [The second respondent] on 13 June 2014, in Hong Kong, obtained access to a computer, namely, a Samsung smartphone, with a view to dishonest gain for another. • [The third respondent] on 13 June 2014, in Hong Kong, obtained access to a computer, namely, a desktop computer of the Church of Christ in China Heep Woh Primary School, with a view to dishonest gain for another. • [The fourth respondent] on 13 June 2014, in Hong Kong, obtained access to a computer, namely, an iPhone, with a view to dishonest gain for another.” 10. The events of 13 June 2014 and the conduct of the respondents as set out above were not in dispute at trial, which proceeded before Permanent Magistrate, Ms Veronica Heung. On 25 February 2016, the Magistrate acquitted all four respondents. She did so on the bases that: