判決理由筆誤的更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v LIU Lin-feng (劉林峰) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Hartmann JA, Beeson J and Barnes J - 判決日期：2012年2月21日 ### 案情摘要 本案為刑事上訴案件，涉及一項判決理由更正 (corrigendum)。原判決中，第56段末句關於量刑起點的描述出現錯誤。該句原為「a starting point of 4 ½ months was manifestly inadequate」（即「4個半月的量刑起點明顯不足」），但實際應為「manifestly excessive」（即「明顯過重」）。此更正旨在澄清原判決的真正意圖，確保判決理由的準確性。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原判決理由中關於量刑起點的措辭錯誤，需要進行更正。爭議點是判決理由第56段末句應使用「明顯不足」(manifestly inadequate) 還是「明顯過重」(manifestly excessive) 來描述4個半月的量刑起點。 ### 判決理由 法庭的裁決理由是基於對原判決文本的審閱，發現第56段末句的措辭存在明顯筆誤。為了確保判決理由的準確性和清晰度，法庭決定發出更正令，將原句中的「manifestly inadequate」更正為「manifestly excessive」。此更正僅為糾正文本錯誤，不影響案件的實質判決。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭頒布更正令，將原判決理由第56段末句中的「a starting point of 4 ½ months was manifestly inadequate」更正為「a starting point of 4 ½ months was manifestly excessive」。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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 LIU Lin-feng (劉林峰) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Hartmann JA, Beeson J and Barnes J - Date of Judgment: 21 February 2012 ### Factual Background This is a criminal appeal case concerning a corrigendum issued to correct an error in the original judgment. The error was found in the last sentence of paragraph 56, which described the starting point for sentencing. The original wording stated "a starting point of 4 ½ months was manifestly inadequate," but it should have been "manifestly excessive." This corrigendum aims to clarify the true intention of the original judgment and ensure the accuracy of the reasons for judgment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the erroneous wording in the original judgment's reasons concerning the sentencing starting point, necessitating a correction. The dispute centered on whether the last sentence of paragraph 56 should have used "manifestly inadequate" or "manifestly excessive" to describe the 4½-month starting point. ### Ratio Decidendi The court's decision was based on a review of the original judgment text, which revealed a clear clerical error in the wording of the last sentence of paragraph 56. To ensure the accuracy and clarity of the reasons for judgment, the court decided to issue a corrigendum, correcting the original phrase "manifestly inadequate" to "manifestly excessive." This correction solely addresses a textual error and does not alter the substantive outcome of the case. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court issued a corrigendum, correcting the last sentence of paragraph 56 in the original reasons for judgment from "a starting point of 4 ½ months was manifestly inadequate" to "a starting point of 4 ½ months was manifestly excessive." ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.