判決書文書錯誤的更正？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v XU XIA LI (D1) and CHING YU CHIU, SINDY (D2) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Woo VP, Yuen JA - 判決日期：2004年9月2日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及一宗刑事上訴，原審案件編號為DCCC 273/2003。上訴法庭於2004年9月2日作出判決。其後，法庭於2004年11月22日發出更正令 (corrigendum)，將判決書首頁D行中錯誤標示的「COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE」更正為「COURT OF APPEAL」。此更正僅為文書性質，不影響判決實質內容。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於判決書中法院名稱的錯誤標示，即將「上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal)」誤寫為「原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance)」。上訴法庭需要處理此文書錯誤，並發出更正令以確保記錄的準確性。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭的判決理由主要基於對判決書中明顯文書錯誤的識別和糾正。法庭確認判決書首頁D行錯誤地將法院名稱標示為「COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE」，而正確的應為「COURT OF APPEAL」。因此，法庭發出更正令，以確保法律文件的準確性和清晰度，此舉屬於法庭固有權力範圍內對文書錯誤的修正。 ### 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，將判決書首頁D行中錯誤標示的「COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE」更正為「COURT OF APPEAL」。此更正令由Woo副庭長書記發出，日期為2004年11月22日。 ### 判決啟示 本案顯示了法庭在發現判決書中存在文書錯誤時，會主動或應要求發出更正令以確保記錄的準確性。這類更正通常不影響判決的實質內容，但對於法律文件的嚴謹性至關重要。此更正令是在判決日期之後發出的，表明文書錯誤的修正可以在判決發出後進行。 --- ### 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 XU XIA LI (D1) and CHING YU CHIU, SINDY (D2) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Woo VP, Yuen JA - Date of Judgment: 2 September 2004 ### Factual Background This case concerns a criminal appeal, originating from DCCC 273/2003. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 2 September 2004. Subsequently, on 22 November 2004, a corrigendum was issued by the court to correct an error on page 1, line D of the judgment, changing the incorrectly stated "COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE" to "COURT OF APPEAL". This correction was purely clerical and did not affect the substantive content of the judgment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the erroneous designation of the court name in the judgment, specifically the misstatement of "Court of Appeal" as "Court of First Instance". The Court of Appeal needed to address this clerical error and issue a corrigendum to ensure the accuracy of the record. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal's reasoning was based on the identification and correction of a clear clerical error within the judgment. The court confirmed that page 1, line D of the judgment incorrectly identified the court as the "COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE" when it should have been the "COURT OF APPEAL". Consequently, the court issued a corrigendum to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the legal document, an action falling within the court's inherent power to correct clerical mistakes. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum to change "COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE" to "COURT OF APPEAL" on page 1, line D of the judgment. This corrigendum was dated 22 November 2004 and issued by the Clerk to Hon Woo VP. ### Key Takeaways This case illustrates that courts will issue corrigenda, either proactively or upon request, to ensure the accuracy of records when clerical errors are found in judgments. Such corrections typically do not affect the substantive outcome of the judgment but are crucial for the integrity of legal documents. The corrigendum was issued after the judgment date, indicating that clerical errors can be rectified subsequent to the initial pronouncement of a decision. --- ### 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.