Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Overbreadth and basic law article 28

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. WONG TAK-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA401/2018

s52(3) RTO is properly construed as requiring mens rea: the driver must have the subjective purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward (a commercial/predominantly business purpose); a direct agreement between driver and passenger is not a legal prerequisite though it may be evidential; the provision is not overbroad or unconstitutional when so construed; on rehearing the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted with the requisite commercial purpose and expectation of reward, so convictions were affirmed.
13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. CHOW KWOK-KWONG ALAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA384/2018

Section 52(3) RTO requires proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to drive 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial/business purpose) and does not require a direct contract between driver and passenger; s52(3) is not overbroad or unconstitutional as properly construed, and on the facts the Appellants' convictions were supported because they drove in pursuit of a remunerative, journey-dependent commercial purpose; appeals dismissed.