Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Freedom of choice of occupation (basic law article 33)

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. KONG CHEUK-LAI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA402/2018

The court held that s52(3) RTO requires proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to carry passengers for hire or reward (a predominantly commercial purpose and expectation of reward derived from the carriage); no direct agreement between driver and passenger is an essential element (such agreement is evidence only); the provision is not overbroad or unconstitutional as properly construed; on the facts the appellants were properly convicted and the appeals were dismissed.
13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. HUI KWOK-WAI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA389/2018

Section 52(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance requires proof of a subjective purpose: the driver must have been driving 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial purpose), but the statute does not require a direct carriage contract between driver and passenger nor a distance‑based reward; the magistrate's remedial interpretation imposing distance dependence was rejected; the offence is not characterised as strict liability in this judgment and the evidence supported convictions, so the consolidated appeals were dismissed and convictions and fines affirmed.