判決書筆誤更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v TANG ZHUYAN(唐珠炎) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權上訴法庭副庭長、倫明高法官、賴磐德法官 - 判決日期：2010年12月14日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗刑事上訴案件，涉及對原審判決的更正。原審判決中，第21段第四行遺漏了「of the」一詞，導致該句的語法不完整。上訴法庭發出更正令，以修正此遺漏。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的主要法律爭議是原審判決書中的文字錯誤，即第21段第四行遺漏了「of the」一詞，需要進行更正。這項更正旨在確保判決書的準確性和完整性。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據其固有權力，發出更正令以修正判決書中的筆誤。此類更正旨在確保判決書能準確反映法庭的意圖，並維持法律文件的清晰度與正確性。更正令的發出是為了糾正判決書中的明顯遺漏，而非改變判決的實質內容。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭發出更正令，修正原審判決書第21段第四行中的遺漏，將該句改為「the nature of the chase of the sampan by the police vessel.」。 ### 判決啟示 本案顯示法庭有權力發出更正令 (corrigendum) 以修正判決書中的筆誤或遺漏，確保法律文件的準確性。這類更正通常不影響判決的實質內容，而是為了提高其清晰度和完整性。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v TANG ZHUYAN(唐珠炎) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung JA, Lunn and Wright JJ - Date of Judgment: 14 December 2010 ### Factual Background This is a criminal appeal case concerning a corrigendum issued to correct an omission in the original judgment. Specifically, the phrase "of the" was omitted from the fourth line of paragraph 21 of the judgment, rendering the sentence grammatically incomplete. The Court of Appeal issued an order to rectify this omission. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the textual error in the original judgment, specifically the omission of the phrase "of the" from the fourth line of paragraph 21, which required correction. This correction aimed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the judgment. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal exercised its inherent power to issue a corrigendum to rectify a clerical error in the judgment. Such corrections are intended to ensure that the judgment accurately reflects the court's intention and maintains the clarity and correctness of legal documents. The corrigendum was issued to correct an obvious omission in the judgment, rather than to alter the substantive content of the decision. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum to correct the omission in the fourth line of paragraph 21 of the original judgment, so that it should read, "the nature of the chase of the sampan by the police vessel." ### Key Takeaways This case illustrates the court's power to issue a corrigendum to correct clerical errors or omissions in judgments, ensuring the accuracy of legal documents. Such corrections typically do not affect the substantive outcome of the judgment but enhance its clarity and completeness. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.