Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Mens rea versus strict liability

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. LAM YAN-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA386/2018

Section 52(3) RTO contains a mens rea element: the offence is proved only where the driver acted with the subjective purpose of carrying passengers 'for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial purpose). A direct agreement between driver and passenger is not an element but may be evidence of that purpose. The provision is not overbroad or unconstitutional as construed; remedial interpretation imposing distance-dependence is unnecessary. On the facts the drivers acted with the requisite commercial purpose and convictions are safe and therefore upheld.
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.