判決書引用法例條文錯誤如何更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v WAN YET KWAI (溫日貴) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Stuart-Moore VP, Stock JA and Hartmann JA - 判決日期：2009年6月3日 ### 案情摘要 本案為刑事上訴案件，涉及一項更正令 (corrigendum)。原審案件編號為DCCC 962/2007，上訴案件編號為CACC 372/2008。更正令的目的是修正判決書中引用《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》(Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455) 條文的錯誤。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於判決書中引用《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》條文的準確性。具體而言，判決書第4段中對該條例第25(2)(vi)及(ix)條的引用是否正確，以及應如何更正。 ### 判決理由 法庭發出更正令，指出判決書第4段中對《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(2)(vi)及(ix)條的引用有誤。正確的引用應為該條例的第2(6)及(9)條。此更正旨在確保判決書內容的法律準確性，並無涉及實質法律原則的分析或案件裁決理由 (ratio decidendi) 的變更。 ### 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，將判決書第4段中對《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(2)(vi)及(ix)條的引用，更正為第2(6)及(9)條。 ### 判決啟示 本案僅為一項程序性更正，旨在修正判決書中的筆誤，不涉及對案件實質判決或法律原則的重新審視。這強調了法庭文件準確性的重要性。 --- ### 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 WAN YET KWAI (溫日貴) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Stuart-Moore VP, Stock JA and Hartmann JA - Date of Judgment: 3 June 2009 ### Factual Background This is a criminal appeal case concerning a corrigendum issued by the Court of Appeal. The original case was DCCC 962/2007, and the appeal case number is CACC 372/2008. The purpose of the corrigendum was to correct an error in the citation of a section of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, within the judgment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the accuracy of the citation of a section of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance in the judgment. Specifically, whether the reference to 'section 25(2)(vi) and (ix)' of the Ordinance in paragraph 4 of the judgment was correct, and how it should be rectified. ### Ratio Decidendi The court issued a corrigendum, stating that the reference to 'section 25(2)(vi) and (ix)' of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance in paragraph 4 of the judgment was incorrect. The correct reference should be 'section 2(6) and (9)' of the Ordinance. This correction aimed to ensure the legal accuracy of the judgment's content and did not involve an analysis of substantive legal principles or a change in the ratio decidendi. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court issued a corrigendum, correcting the reference in paragraph 4 of the judgment from 'section 25(2)(vi) and (ix)' of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance to 'section 2(6) and (9)' of the Ordinance. ### Key Takeaways This case was merely a procedural correction to rectify a clerical error in the judgment, not a re-examination of the substantive decision or legal principles. It highlights the importance of accuracy in court documents. --- ### 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.