判決書筆誤的更正？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v HUANG Ruifang (黃瑞芳) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Macrae署理首席法官、Zervos及M Poon上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2025年3月5日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗刑事上訴案件，涉及對高等法院原訟法庭HCCC NO 10 OF 2022號案件判決的更正。原判決中，關於毒品數量（可卡因）的記載有誤。原判決將可卡因數量錯誤地記錄為「4,470 grammes of cocaine」，而正確的數量應為「4,770 grammes of cocaine」。此外，原判決中對審理法官職稱的記載亦有誤，將「Deputy Judge Martin Hui, SC」錯誤地寫為「Recorder Martin Hui, SC」。本更正判決旨在修正這些錯誤。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原判決中關於毒品數量及審理法官職稱的筆誤是否需要正式更正，以及更正的程序和效力。上訴法庭需確認這些錯誤是否屬於明顯的書寫錯誤，並決定如何透過發出更正令來確保判決的準確性。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據其固有權力，發出更正令以修正原判決中的明顯筆誤。法庭認為，判決書中關於毒品數量「4,470 grammes of cocaine」應更正為「4,770 grammes of cocaine」，以及審理法官職稱「Deputy Judge Martin Hui, SC」應更正為「Recorder Martin Hui, SC」。這些更正旨在確保判決的準確性和清晰度，避免因筆誤而引起混淆或對案件實質產生影響。 ### 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，修正原判決中的兩處筆誤。第一處是將可卡因的數量從「4,470 grammes」更正為「4,770 grammes」。第二處是將審理法官的職稱從「Deputy Judge Martin Hui, SC」更正為「Recorder Martin Hui, SC」。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了法庭在發現判決書中存在筆誤時，有權發出更正令以確保判決的準確性。這類更正通常是針對明顯的書寫錯誤，不會影響判決的實質內容或法律原則。這對於維護司法文書的嚴謹性和公信力至關重要。 --- ### 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 HUANG Ruifang (黃瑞芳) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae Acting CJHC, Zervos and M Poon JJA - Date of Judgment: 5 March 2025 ### Factual Background This is a criminal appeal case concerning a corrigendum issued to amend errors in the judgment of HCCC NO 10 OF 2022 from the Court of First Instance. The original judgment contained an error regarding the quantity of drugs (cocaine), incorrectly stating it as "4,470 grammes of cocaine" when the correct amount was "4,770 grammes of cocaine". Additionally, the title of the presiding judge was misstated as "Deputy Judge Martin Hui, SC" instead of "Recorder Martin Hui, SC". This corrigendum judgment aims to rectify these clerical errors. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether clerical errors in the original judgment concerning the quantity of drugs and the judge's title required formal correction, and the procedure and effect of such correction. The Court of Appeal needed to confirm if these errors were obvious slips and decide how to ensure the accuracy of the judgment through a corrigendum. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal, exercising its inherent power, issued a corrigendum to correct obvious clerical errors in the original judgment. The court determined that the quantity of cocaine, stated as "4,470 grammes of cocaine", should be corrected to "4,770 grammes of cocaine". Furthermore, the title of the presiding judge, "Deputy Judge Martin Hui, SC", should be corrected to "Recorder Martin Hui, SC". These corrections were made to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the judgment, preventing confusion or substantive impact due to clerical mistakes. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal issued a corrigendum, correcting two clerical errors in the original judgment. The first correction changed the quantity of cocaine from "4,470 grammes" to "4,770 grammes". The second correction changed the title of the presiding judge from "Deputy Judge Martin Hui, SC" to "Recorder Martin Hui, SC". ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the court's power to issue a corrigendum to ensure the accuracy of a judgment when clerical errors are discovered. Such corrections typically address obvious slips and do not affect the substantive content or legal principles of the judgment. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of judicial 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.