1. The Appellants were drivers of private cars in respect of each of which a hire car permit (“HCP”) was not in force. They provided carriage services to passengers who requested a ride through the Uber App. The passengers paid a fare for each trip by credit card transfer to Uber, which in turn remunerated the drivers. 2. The Magistrate convicted each of the Appellants of the offence of driving a motor vehicle “for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward” (“the phrase”)without an HCP, contrary to section 52(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap.374) (“s.52(3)”). This was because they had allowed passengers to get in their cars solely for the purpose of the car rides that were to be paid, and they must have known and intended that the journeys were to be paid. This conclusion was upheld on appeal to the Court of First Instance. 3. Both the Magistrate and the Judge rejected the Appellants’ interpretation of the phrase, namely that it required proof that each driver was driving for the sole purpose of fulfilling a direct agreement for carriage between himself and the passenger from which he was to be rewarded. 4. The same interpretation was argued on behalf of the Appellants and rejected by the Court of Final Appeal. 5. The Court observed that the issue to be addressed was one of statutory construction of s.52(3), which required consideration of the text, context and purpose of the provision. 6. The Court held that, although the wording of s.52(3) requires there to be a link between the carriage of passengers and the hire or reward, there is no basis to read the phrase as requiring a single contract between the driver and his passenger in the context of s.52(3) as a whole, which also applies to someone other than the driver who “uses” or “suffers or permits” a vehicle without an HCP to be driven for the same prohibited purpose. Instead, the phrase is to be read as referring to the nature or circumstance of the carriage, namely for hire or reward, whether by or from the passenger or someone else. 7. The Court held that the legislative purpose of s.52(3) is not limited merely to the prohibition of private cars plying for hire on the streets but extends also to revenue generation, administrative regulation, road safety and, more specifically, regulation of transport services businesses. The Court held that rejecting the Appellants’ interpretation of the phrase would not lead to s.52(3) catching situations in which an employed chauffeur drove his employer’s friends or family or his employer’s employees or work associates. This is because the carriage of passengers will be for hire or reward only where it constitutes a business arrangement for carriage. Friendly arrangements, such as where an employed chauffeur drove someone at his employer’s direction for the latter’s private purposes, would not usually be carriage for hire or reward. 8. Further, although the legislature did not have in mind technology such as the Uber App when s.52(3) was enacted, it did not follow that the prohibition was not intended to criminalise the conduct of the Appellants. The Court applied the principle that a statute is “always speaking” and held that the activities of the Appellants fell within the prohibition and regulatory purpose of s.52(3). 9. Where there is no HCP in force in respect of a private car, the facts or circumstances required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for the s.52(3) offence to be made out are that: (i) a person has driven or used a motor vehicle, or suffered or permitted another to do so; (ii) the driving or use of the vehicle has been for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward in that the carriage is undertaken as a business or commercial arrangement whereby payment is made by the passenger or on his behalf (whether to the driver or some third party) and that payment is received (whether by the driver or some third party) in respect of the provision of the carriage in question. 10. In the present case, the Appellant drivers each drove a private car, in respect of which an HCP was not in force, for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. On the proper construction of s.52(3), it was sufficient that the carriage was undertaken as part of the Uber ride service business and unnecessary that there be a direct contract between each driver and their respective passengers. Disposition 11. Accordingly, the appeal was unanimously dismissed.