-5- (i) She had a reasonable doubt that the teacher in charge had ever mentioned at the briefing seminar the need for confidentiality in relation to the Interview Questions. (ii) In each case she was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the necessary element of dishonesty had been made out. 11. The appellant applied to the Magistrate asking her to review her decision to acquit pursuant to s 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227). On 26 September 2016, the Magistrate confirmed her decision. The appellant then applied to the Magistrate to state a case on a point of law pursuant to s 105 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227). Under that section where it is desired to question by way of appeal any order or determination on the ground that it is erroneous in point of law, a party to the charge or the Secretary for Justice may apply to the magistrate to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds upon which the order or determination was granted for the opinion of a judge. 12. The Magistrate stated a case setting out the questions arising from it for the opinion of the Court of First Instance. Despite the requirement for a point of law, the questions largely went to the Magistrate’s factual conclusions. They were as follows: Question 1: Did I err in finding that D1-4 might not be aware that the questions distributed at the briefing were the actual questions to be asked at the Interview?