13 Sept 2019
HKSAR v. CHUNG TZE-CHUN IVAN
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2280
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA397/2018
On rehearing the court held s52(3) RTO requires proof of the driver's subjective purpose (mens rea) that the driving was for the carriage of passengers 'for hire or reward'; no legal requirement of a direct contract with the passenger is to be read into the provision (such agreements are evidential but not essential); the magistrate's remedial reading and distance‑dependent reward requirement was rejected; the statute, properly construed, covers Uber arrangements where the driver's purpose is predominantly commercial and reward is derived from the carriage; on the facts before the court the a…