29 Nov 2019
HKSAR v. LAM YAN-MING
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2899
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA386/2018
The court held that s52(3)(a) RTO targets the driver's subjective purpose to drive for the carriage of passengers with an expectation of reward derived from that carriage; it does not require a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger or actual payment; the statutory phrase should be read as targeting predominantly commercial carriage; the applicants' statutory and constitutional points were not reasonably arguable and certification was refused.
- Interpretation of s52(3)(a) road traffic ordinance
- Mens rea and subjective purpose
- Hire car permit offences
- Overbreadth doctrine
- Basic law article 28 (protection against arbitrariness)
- Basic law article 33 (freedom of occupation)