Secretary for Justice v. Wong Ka Yip, Ken

[English Translation – 英譯本]
HCMA 77/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 1122/2012)

____________

____________

__________________

C O R R I G E N D A

__________________

1.Paragraph 21, page 7:-

‘The Magistrate pointed out that the differences in wordings in the Chinese definitions of the terms “device” (be it “裝置” [zhuangzhi] or “器材” [“xicai”]), and “retrieving information” (be it “重新取得資料” [congxin qude ziliao] or……’ should be changed to ‘The Magistrate pointed out that the differences in wordings in the Chinese definitions of the terms “device” (be it “裝置” [zhuangzhi] or “器材” [“qicai”]), and “retrieving information” (be it “重新取得資料” [chongxin qude ziliao] or……’

2.Paragraph 32, page 10:-

‘Although the two judges considered that the prosecution had charged the defendants with the offences technically, they nevertheless accepted the pleas of guilty, which showed the charges to be correct.’ should be changed to ‘Although the two judges considered that the prosecution had charged the defendants with the technical offences, they nevertheless accepted the pleas of guilty, which showed the charges to be correct.’

3.Paragraph 37, page 11:-

‘Furthermore, when the manufacturer described such phone could perform many functions similar to a computer……’ should be changed to ‘Furthermore, when the manufacturer described such phone as capable of performing many functions similar to a computer……’

4.Paragraph 43, page 13:-

‘……because section 161 prescribes criminal liability and includes the penalty of imprisonment, and an excessively loose definition would render a person unwittingly fall foul of the law.’ should be changed to ‘……because section 161 prescribes criminal liability and includes the penalty of imprisonment, and an excessively loose definition would result in a person unwittingly falling foul of the law. ’

5.Paragraph 47(1), page 14:-

‘However, if John Doe wrote the letter with a computer word processor, and he also gave up the plan and did not send out the letter. Although he did not commit blackmail……’ should be changed to ‘However, if John Doe wrote the letter with a computer word processor, and he also gave up the plan and did not send out the letter, although he did not commit blackmail……’

6.Paragraph 47(2), page 15:-

‘……John Doe had dishonestly obtained access to a computer, and had contravened section 161(1)(c). ’ should be changed to ‘……John Doe would have dishonestly obtained access to a computer, and contravened section 161(1)(c). ’

Dated the 18^th  day of October 2013.