Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Basic law article 28

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

IMRAN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1291/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead reasonably arguable and particularised grounds with a realistic prospect of success; portions attacking the Director's decision were not susceptible to review once the TCAB/NRCPO had heard the appeal; the TCAB/NRCPO's decision survived enhanced scrutiny as it contained reasoned findings on credibility, evidence, risk of harm, state protection and internal relocation and disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision.
29 Sept 2025

FAISAL RASOOL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2365/2020

The applicant failed to identify any arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Director's decision was superseded by the Board and not reviewable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the leave application dismissed.
1 Feb 2023

CABORNAY EVELYN QUINAWAYAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 125
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV285/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484 or any error of law or arguable point, and thus there was no basis to grant leave under either the primary or 'otherwise' limb of the statute.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. WONG TAK-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA401/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) RTO focuses on the driver's subjective purpose to drive for carriage of passengers for hire or reward; it does not require an express direct agreement with the passenger or actual payment; the provision targets predominantly commercial carriage arrangements; the applicants' proposed direct‑agreement requirement and constitutional challenges were not reasonably arguable and certification was refused.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. YIP WAI-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) RTO requires proof of the defendant's subjective purpose to drive 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward', but it does not require a direct contractual agreement or direct payment from the passenger; the phrase is to be read as a whole and targets predominantly commercial carriage (pak pai) and the constitutional challenges under Articles 28 and 33 are not reasonably arguable in the circumstances; application for a certificate was dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LEE HING-LUNG GARY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA390/2018

The phrase 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' in s52(3)(a) is a requirement of the defendant's subjective purpose: the prosecution must prove the driver intended the carriage to be for hire or reward; no direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger is required; the provision targets carriage of a predominantly commercial character and is supported by legislative history and local authorities; the application for certification was dismissed because the contested alternative constructions and constitutional challenges were not reasonably arguable.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. YUONG HO-CHEUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA381/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) focuses on the driver's subjective purpose (mens rea) to carry passengers for hire or reward, does not require an actual payment or a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger, and targets predominantly commercial carriage; the applicants' narrower 'direct agreement' construction and constitutional challenges on overbreadth and freedom of occupation were not reasonably arguable and certification was refused.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. WONG WAI-KEUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA387/2018

Application for a certificate dismissed because the central statutory interpretation question (meaning of 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward') is not reasonably arguable: s52(3)(a) focuses on the driver's subjective purpose to obtain reward from carriage (expectation of payment) but does not require direct agreement or actual payment; the carriage targeted is predominantly commercial; challenges based on overbreadth under BL28 and freedom of occupation under BL33 were not reasonably arguable in these consolidated appeals.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. KONG CHEUK-LAI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA402/2018

Court held s52(3)(a) criminalises driving where the driver subjectively intended the driving 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (mens rea), actual payment or a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger is not required, the provision targets predominately commercial carriage such as unlicensed taxi services, and the applicants' contentions were not reasonably arguable; application for certificate dismissed.