判決書文字錯誤更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：倫明高上訴法庭副庭長、麥偉德法官 - 判決日期：2013年9月3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41段第13頁第I行及第M行出現了排版錯誤。上訴法庭發出更正令，以修正這些錯誤，確保判決書的準確性。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原審判決書中文字表述的準確性。具體而言，是判決書第41段中關於「濫用信任 (abuse of trust)」及受害人工作環境描述的文字錯誤，需要進行更正。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭發出更正令，以修正原審判決書中的排版錯誤。此更正旨在確保判決書的文字表述與法庭的意圖一致，並維持判決書的準確性和完整性。更正令本身並未涉及對案件實質內容的重新審視或法律原則的應用，僅為技術性修正。 ### 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（DCCC 476/2012）第41段第13頁第I行及第M行的文字錯誤。更正後的文字已在更正令中列明。 ### 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 Lam See Chung, Stephen - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lunn JA and McWalters J - Date of Judgment: 3 September 2013 ### Factual Background This is a criminal appeal case concerning a corrigendum issued by the Court of Appeal to correct typographical errors in the original judgment. Specifically, errors were identified in paragraph 41, page 13, lines I and M of the original judgment, necessitating this correction to ensure accuracy. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the accuracy of the wording in the original judgment. Specifically, it concerned typographical errors in paragraph 41 of the judgment regarding the description of "abuse of trust" and the victim's working environment, which required correction. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum to rectify typographical errors in the original judgment. This correction aimed to ensure that the text of the judgment accurately reflected the court's intention and maintained the judgment's accuracy and integrity. The corrigendum itself did not involve a re-examination of the substantive merits of the case or the application of legal principles, but rather a technical amendment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum to correct typographical errors in paragraph 41, page 13, lines I and M of the original judgment (DCCC 476/2012). The corrected wording was specified in the corrigendum. ### 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.