13 Sept 2019
HKSAR v. CHAN PAK-KAY ANDREW
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2280
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA385/2018
Section 52(3) RTO must be read to include a mens rea element regarding the driver’s subjective purpose to carry passengers for hire or reward; proof of a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger is not required and is only evidential; the provision is not overbroad or unconstitutional as properly construed; remedial interpretation was unnecessary; on the facts the Appellants were driving for predominantly commercial purposes and expected reward derived from the carriage so convictions are safe and appeals are dismissed.