Uber case: Hong Kong magistrate slams waste of resources; lawyer denies using delaying tactics in case
A pretrial review was scheduled in a case against five Uber drivers, but a change of instructing solicitors put the plan on hold
The lawyer for five Uber drivers facing charges after a police crackdown on the car-hailing service has denied using delaying tactics as a magistrate slammed a waste of resources when the case did not proceed as scheduled.
Kowloon City Court was supposed to hear a pretrial review on Wednesday to set the date and duration of the trial as well as the number of witnesses, among other issues.
Uber court cases see two men fined and banned from driving for a year
The review was scheduled after the five – Chan Tsz-lun, Sunny Leung Hoi-shun, Lau Kwan-wing, Chan Kin-fung, and Luk Chun-pong – all denied one count of driving a vehicle for hire without a permit and another of using a vehicle without third-party insurance between August 11 and 12 last year.
But defence lawyer Jonathan Midgley said they were not ready for the review because the instructing solicitors had been changed just over a week ago.
He did not disclose the reasons for the move, except to say he was “quite sure the defendants are not to blame for the change of solicitors”.
He added that they were still expecting some documents from the prosecution and that they had yet to consult experts or instruct their counsel.
“At a quick glance of what we have got, this is potentially a difficult, a technical case,” said Midgley.
What’s it like to work for Uber? Hong Kong drivers tell the human story behind the ride-sharing app
Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen replied: “Today’s pretrial review is a waste, a waste of time and a waste of resources. By resources I mean public funds.”
He said it was the defendants’ right to change solicitors, but he expressed concern over the delay and warned that the defence would not benefit from using delaying tactics.
“I assure you there’s no intention to delay the trial,” said Midgley as he requested a further adjournment to April 28 for a second review.
Law said he was reluctant to grant the request, adding: “If the next pretrial review is also a waste, then I would move to the next step to fix a trial date ... You bear the consequences, if any.”
