Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mens rea and subjective purpose

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. FAN WING-YAU

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA404/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) focuses on the defendant driver's subjective purpose to provide carriage 'for hire or reward'; there is no requirement of a formal or directly enforceable agreement between driver and passenger nor of actual direct payment by the passenger; the expected reward may be derived indirectly; the provision targets predominantly commercial carriage and the applicants' construction requiring a direct agreement was not supported by authorities and not reasonably arguable; constitutional arguments under Basic Law Articles 28 and 33 were not reasonably arguable in the circu…
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.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. WONG SAI-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA394/2018

The application for a certificate is dismissed because the central questions were not reasonably arguable: s52(3)(a) requires the prosecution to prove the defendant driver bore the subjective purpose of obtaining reward from the carriage of passengers (not necessarily direct payment or a direct contract with the passenger) and targets predominantly commercial carriage; constitutional challenges on overbreadth and Article 33 were either not engaged or not reasonably arguable on the facts and authorities.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. CHOW KWOK-KWONG ALAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA384/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) RTO is concerned with the driver's subjective purpose to provide commercial carriage (for hire or reward); it does not require a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger nor actual payment; the statutory phrase must be read in context and with precedent to target predominantly commercial carriage; the applicants' proposed narrow construction and constitutional challenges were not reasonably arguable, so the certificate application was dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. CHICK WAI-HO

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA415/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) targets drivers whose subjective purpose in driving is to obtain reward derived from carriage of passengers (not necessarily via a direct agreement or actual payment) and that the Applicants' novel requirement of a direct contractual agreement with the passenger is unsupported by authority; constitutional challenges on overbreadth and Article 33 were not reasonably arguable on the facts and authorities, therefore the application for a certificate was dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LAU KIN-FUNG BOSCO

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA391/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) focuses on the defendant driver's subjective purpose to provide carriage of passengers for hire or reward and does not require a direct contractual agreement between the driver and passenger; the provision targets predominantly commercial carriage and the applicants' alternative construction and constitutional arguments (overbreadth and Article 33) were not reasonably arguable, so the application for a certificate was dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LAM KIN-FAT

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA405/2018

The application for a certificate was dismissed because the court held the correct construction of s52(3)(a) focuses on the driver's subjective purpose to provide passenger carriage for hire or reward (commercial character), does not require a direct agreement between driver and passenger or actual payment, and the constitutional challenges under Basic Law Articles 28 and 33 were not reasonably arguable on these facts.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. FAN WING-YAU

HKSAR v. LAM YAN-MING

HKSAR v. WONG SAI-MING

HKSAR v. CHOW KWOK-KWONG ALAN

HKSAR v. CHICK WAI-HO

HKSAR v. LAU KIN-FUNG BOSCO

HKSAR v. LAM KIN-FAT