It seems Hong Kong's Department of Justice will have to wait until early next year to see if an existing law can continue to be used in battling individuals committing smartphone-related crimes, one of which is upskirting. The news came following an earlier court ruling that forced it to suspend such prosecutions.
In a report from South China Morning Post, the department revealed earlier this month its decision to file a challenge at the Court of Final Appeal. It was meant to argue against a lower court's ruling, which states that the offense of accessing a computer with deceitful intent. This is basically under Section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance. It had been implemented wrongly in the case of four schoolteachers.
The decision also means that there is a need to review pending cases relating to smartphone crimes and, at the same time, put all prosecutions on hold.
While the number of cases remains unknown, there are reportedly two cases of upskirting. Both were adjourned for four months, as well as a dropped third case in the original charge under the aforementioned section.
According to the latest figures from the Security Bureau, it appears that in the first three months of this year, about 31 people were already arrested for computer-related crimes. This already includes upskirting offenses.
Yahoo! reports that the High Court refused to pass conviction on the teachers who allegedly leaked exam questions by using their own mobile devices. It even insisted that the Justice Department's prosecutors should have proven the existence of "unauthorised extraction and use of information from the computer," rather than the idea of using either a computer or smartphone.
Lawmakers and human right groups have all questioned whether previous use of the same charge of "access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent" went beyond the original purpose of the law. They also posed a question about the comprehensive review of what it overs. There are those who believe that the review should happen now, instead of waiting for the apex court decision.
