Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/15

-15- 28. The Crown then brought an appeal and in the course of submissions, referred to the explanation given in R v Goldman (Terence), which was in these terms:

29. The case of Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare was also relied on and the Crown argued that the note was not simply an invitation to the complainant to go to the respondent’s house. It was capable of being interpreted as an encouragement to visit his home to engage in sexual activity, referring to her “nice bum”, to her being “beautiful” and, perhaps more significantly, “coming round for some fun”.

30. The English Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown and said, “Individually and collectively, we have no doubt that the words used are capable of amounting to an incitement to engage in sexual activity. It is certainly a proposal or request. It seeks to influence the mind of the