由此 -2- A B C A of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. She was fined $5,000. She appealed against conviction only. B C D D BACKGROUND E F 2. There was only limited dispute about the evidence. The Appellant advertised on the Internet that she provided sexual services. A E F police officer, PW1, spoke in a chat room with the Appellant and she G H confirmed that she offered sexual services. Some days after that another police officer, PW2, telephoned the Appellant and made an appointment to G H meet her with a view to the Appellant providing sexual services. I I J 3. The next day PW2 met the Appellant outside an MTR station J exit. There, it was alleged, a conversation ensued between the officer and K L K the Appellant about the nature of her services, their cost and the place where such services would be provided. After that the Appellant led the officer towards the San Diego hotel. The Appellant was arrested by M L M another police officer in the vicinity of the hotel. N N 4. At trial the basis of the defence was that whatever might have O O passed between the Appellant and any police officer before the meeting, P Q the rendezvous at the place and time set out in the charge was prearranged and there was no solicitation at the meeting. The Appellant challenged the P Q content of the conversation which PW2 said took place, saying that no R S details were discussed as the officer alleged and that their conversation simply confirmed what had been agreed previously. R S T T U U V V