Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Soliciting passengers

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. WAN SIU KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN SIU KEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1156/2003

The conviction stands because the Magistrate reasonably preferred prosecution witnesses on credibility and there was no basis to interfere; the sentence stands because the Magistrate lawfully exercised discretion, applied a deterrent starting point within the 6‑month statutory maximum given the Appellant's persistent soliciting offences, and properly activated and ordered consecutive running of the prior suspended sentence.
22 Aug 1997

HKSAR v. MO KAM TONG, STANLEY

Citation

HKSAR v. MO KAM TONG, STANLEY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA453/1997

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate's decisive finding that the appellant beckoned was not supported by the evidence and, on the evidence accepted, merely asking a person where he wished to go did not amount to soliciting; therefore the conviction was unsafe.
16 Mar 1995

THE QUEEN v. LI LOK KIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LI LOK KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA85/1995

The suspended custodial sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances given the maximum penalty and the substantial fine already imposed; the suspended imprisonment was set aside while the fine was upheld.
21 Sept 1974

TAM SEK-LUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TAM SEK-LUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC721/1974

Because the trial court wrongly refused the appellant the opportunity to put the contents of the police officer's notebook to the witness and the notebook evidence could not properly be admitted for the first time on appeal, the conviction was set aside and a retrial was ordered.
10 May 1973

CHAN KAM v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN KAM v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC304/1973

The magistrate's factual finding that the appellant solicited the police officers and the conclusion that his account of a prior radio arrangement was untruthful were reasonable; the statutory prohibition on solicitation applies to drivers and the required mens rea was established by the magistrate's acceptance that the appellant lied, so the conviction is upheld.
16 Dec 1972

CHAN TAI-LEE v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN TAI-LEE v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC667/1972

Conviction for soliciting passengers which involves driving the vehicle falls within offences "under this Ordinance or under any regulations made thereunder" so that a magistrate was lawfully empowered by section 23(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance to order disqualification; however, because the magistrate's disqualification was a departure from common practice when the insurance offence was not charged, the appellate court varied the period of disqualification from six months to seven weeks.
2 Jun 1969

TSANG CHI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSANG CHI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/1969

The magistrate believed the police witness and the accused's own statement that he went to solicit passengers; that established soliciting and that the vehicle was being used for plying for hire which required third party insurance, therefore both convictions were properly sustained.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. WAN SIU KEI

HKSAR v. MO KAM TONG, STANLEY

THE QUEEN v. LI LOK KIN

TAM SEK-LUEN v. THE QUEEN

CHAN KAM v. THE QUEEN

CHAN TAI-LEE v. THE QUEEN

TSANG CHI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN