If Hoi knew that Po Chu would not have consented to his accessing her email account, he commits the offence of “unauthorized access to a computer by telecommunications” contrary to Section 27A of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Chapter 106). Unauthorized access occurs, where the person accessing the computer is not the person entitled to control access to the computer, has no authorization to access the computer, does not believe either that he or she has that authority or that authority would have been given had it been applied for.

The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $20,000.

When Hoi accessed Po Chu’s email account with intent to read her emails, he committed the offence of “accessing to computer with criminal or dishonest intent” with a view to dishonest gain for himself contrary to Section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200). He intended to gain information (Po Chu’s emails) which he did not have at the time. The only issue is whether he was dishonest.

Whether or not Hoi was dishonest depends upon the answers to two questions: “the Ghosh test”. The first question is whether Hoi’s accessing Po Chu’s emails without her permission would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary reasonable and decent people. This is an objective test. If the answer is “yes”, the second question is whether Hoi knew that his conduct was dishonest according to that standard. This is a subjective test. If the answer is “yes”, then Hoi is dishonest. Whether or not he considered his conduct as dishonest (as opposed to knowing it was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people) is irrelevant.

Ordinary reasonable and decent people would likely regard Hoi’s act of reading Po Chu’s emails without her consent as not only disrespectful and reprehensible but as dishonest. Hoi knew at the time he did it that he was doing something dishonest in the eyes of reasonable and decent people by covertly logging into Po Chu’s email account. Hoi’s act would be regarded as dishonest at law.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 5 years’ imprisonment.

Hoi will likely have committed the offence of “inciting or soliciting other persons to commit a crime” under the common law. By asking for help in making and detonating the bomb, Hoi is encouraging other persons to join with him in causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property contrary to Section 53 of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200). If Hoi did not intend to make and detonate a bomb he would not commit the offence of incitement. Incitement requires an intention that the persons to whom the inciting words are directed should commit the offence referred to. If Hoi was simply making a joke, he would not intend other persons to act upon his words.

If the replies themselves amount to incite other persons to join Hoi’s enterprise, the persons sending those replies might themselves have committed the common law offences of incitement. All would depend on the contents of the reply and, for the offence of incitement, the intent of the sender of the reply.