HKSAR v. TSUI PING WING

HKSAR v. TSUI PING WING

Regulation 45(1)(a) is a lawfully provided restriction on freedom of expression; it is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of passengers, public order and public morals in the context of licensed taxi drivers and is not discriminatory under Article 22; accordingly the challenge fails and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v. TSUI PING WING
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: TSUI PING WING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Case Number
HCMA857/1999
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Equality and Non Discrimination, Regulatory Licensing, Vagueness Doctrine, Proportionality, Criminal Sanctions
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Road Traffic Law Human Rights Freedom of Expression Equality and Non Discrimination Regulatory Licensing Vagueness Doctrine +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

TSUI PING WING

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicle) Regulations Cap.374 Reg 45(1)(a) and Reg 57(1) under Articles 16 and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights
  2. 2 Whether restriction is "provided by law","necessary" and "proportionate" under Article 16(3)
  3. 3 Whether Regulation 45(1)(a) is void for vagueness

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 45(1)(a) is a lawfully provided restriction on freedom of expression; it is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of passengers, public order and public morals in the context of licensed taxi drivers and is not discriminatory under Article 22; accordingly the challenge fails and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence (fine of HKD 500) upheld