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.