Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Road traffic ordinance s52(3)

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. WONG SAI-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA394/2018

Court held s52(3) RTO requires proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to carry passengers for hire or reward (mens rea), but does not require a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger nor actual payment; properly construed s52(3) is not overbroad or unconstitutional as applied to Uber drivers; on the facts the drivers had the requisite commercial purpose and convictions were upheld.
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.