Background 1. A total of 28 Uber drivers were each charged with the offence of driving a motor vehicle for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, contrary to sections 52(3) and 52(10) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. The charges arose from the following circumstances. 2. In early- to mid-2017, the police conducted 22 undercover operations against private car hire via Uber; in the same period, three civilians made complaints to the police of six other incidents of private car hire, also via Uber. One civilian suffered injuries as a result of an accident in the ride, while the other two were dissatisfied with the transport services. The undercover officers and the civilians are referred to as “passengers” below. 3. Some of the passengers installed Uber’s Riders App on their mobile phones shortly before the incidents, whereas others had had it installed well beforehand. On the days of the incidents, using the App, they made requests for transport services, from various locations to various destinations. In response, on the screens of the passengers’ mobile phones were shown a map describing the routes, several choices of cars, together with corresponding fares. The passengers chose the cars for the rides, and were then provided the defendants’ nicknames and photographs, plus details of their cars. Next, the defendants turned up at the stipulated pick-up points and the passengers got in their cars for the journeys. Most of the journeys were completed; several were not, due to police actions before the cars arrived at the destinations or because there had been a car accident. Whether or not the journeys were completed, the fares were charged and paid by way of credit cards transfers. Issues and the court’s rulings on them 4. In the previous road traffic control regime under the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 220, for the purposes of a prosecution of private car hire, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove an unenforceable agreement of carriage between the driver and the passenger. This court holds that under the current Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, proof of such an illegal agreement is no longer required, and it is unnecessary for the court to take into account contextual considerations such as social and domestic occasions in such prosecutions. However, the court is bound by previous authorities to construe the expression “hire or reward” disjunctively. 5. There has been an enlargement of the scope of prohibition against private car hire under the current legislation. The prohibition applies to all motor vehicles, registered or not, except the four classes of vehicles referred to in section 52(3) itself. Reward includes salary. In consequence, section 52(3) applies to all employed drivers as well as those running a private car hire. The court finds, on the constitutional principle of “overbreadth”, that the section infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by art. 28 of the Basic Law, and it contravenes art. 11 as well. 6. The court has no jurisdiction to perform the rationality and proportionality tests to justify (a) a rights-infringing provision due to its being overbroad, and (b) a contravention of the Basic Law. The court has, however, the jurisdiction, and is under a positive legal duty, to adopt a remedial interpretation of section 52(3), to ensure that it is Basic Law-compliant. By adopting a restrictive interpretation of the section, the court rules that the prosecution must prove that (i) the defendants had undertaken the journeys for the sole reason or purpose that a reward would be paid or received, (ii) the passengers had accepted the carriage for no other reasons but a payment of the reward quid pro quo the journeys, in that the reward must be calculated per ride and as per the distance travelled. 7. The court finds that the section 52(3) offence is not a strict liability offence because it does not have the nature and characteristics of a regulatory offence, and because making it a strict liability offence will have no effect on enforcement. Conclusion 8. There is no evidence before the court suggesting that the defendants undertook the journeys for reasons other than that the journeys were intended to be paid, of which the defendants were in full knowledge and in which the defendants had full intention. As the rewards were paid shortly after the journeys, the offences were complete on the days charged. The court finds each of the 28 defendants guilty of the respective charge they each face.