News and current affairs

Former Taipei City Councilor Lai Su-ru was detained on suspicion of accepting bribes. However, his appointed lawyer's request for review was rejected. Lai Su-ru and his defender jointly petitioned for an interpretation of the constitution, and the Justice Yuan Justice Conference issued Interpretation No. 737 on April 29, 2015. The Interpretation determined that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law restricting the rights of lawyers and defendants to review documents during detention proceedings were unconstitutional. The Legislative Yuan passed the draft amendment to some provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law on the third reading on April 21, 2016. Defendants of future defendants may be detained during the investigation stage. The review process reviews relevant files.

Full news content:

https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E8%90%BD%E5%AF%A6%E6%AD%A6%E5%99%A8%E%20%205%B9%B3%E7%AD%89%E7%AB%8B%E9%99%A2%E4%B8%89%E8%AE%80%E9%%20%2080%9A%E9%81%8E%E7%BE%88%E6%8A%BC%E5%AF%A9%E6%9F%A5%E7%A8%20%20%8B%E5%BA%8F%E4%B8%AD%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%E5%BE%8B%E5%B8%%20%20AB%E5%8F%AF%E9%96%B1%E5%8D%B7-070900719.html

5%B9%B3%E7%AD%89%E7%AB%8B%E9%99%A2%E4%B8%89%E8%AE%80%E9%

80%9A%E9%81%8E%E7%BE%88%E6%8A%BC%E5%AF%A9%E6%9F%A5%E7%A8

%8B%E5%BA%8F%E4%B8%AD%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%E5%BE%8B%E5%B8%

AB%E5%8F%AF%E9%96%B1%E5%8D%B7-070900719.html

In the past, when criminal suspects under investigation were detained, they could only learn about the criminal offenses and general reasons for detention (such as the risk of escape or collusion) from the custody ticket, or even simply recorded "as stated in the petition" but (the petition was not handed over to the criminal suspect). As for the specific content of the various reasons for the prosecutor's request for detention and what the relevant evidence is, neither the criminal suspect nor his chosen defender has any way of understanding the details of the detention ruling. The difficulty of resisting prosecution will not restrict or hinder the effective exercise of the right of defense by criminal suspects and defenders.

Regarding the above question, the Judicial Yuan Justice Interpretation No. 737 is based on the principle of due process of law in the Constitution and determines that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law in the past are unconstitutional. It clearly points out the reasons for requesting detention and the relevant evidence. Whether the judge approves the detention shall determine The basis for depriving a criminal suspect of his or her personal freedom must be promptly informed in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, because detention during investigation is the most serious compulsory punishment that restricts people’s personal freedom before prosecution, maximum procedural protections should be provided. When relevant authorities amend the law, they should also consider whether to extend the compulsory defense system to the detention review process during investigations.

Recently, the Legislative Yuan passed the third reading of the addition of Article 33-1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which stipulates: "Defenders may inspect files and exhibits and may copy or photograph them during the detention review process during an investigation, unless otherwise provided by law. The defenders have or are informed The evidence and information mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall not be disclosed, disclosed or used for any improper purpose. During the detention review process of a defendant without a defender, the court shall make it known to the public in an appropriate manner, and the Criminal Procedure Law. Article 31-1 (effective from January 1, 2017): "If a defender is not selected during the custody review process during the investigation, the presiding judge shall designate a public defender or lawyer to defend the defendant. However, if the defendant has to wait for more than four hours to appoint a defender This does not apply to cases where the defendant fails to appear for questioning at his own initiative. If the defender appointed in the preceding paragraph fails to appear in court without justifiable reasons, the presiding judge may appoint a public defender or lawyer as specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the preceding article. This shall apply mutatis mutandis in all circumstances, in order to comply with the interpretation intention of the Justice Yuan's Interpretation No. 737.

However, in order to ensure the realization of the state’s penal power, if there are facts sufficient to prove that there is a risk of annihilating, forging, altering evidence, colluding with accomplices or witnesses, etc. or endangering the life or body of others, the prosecutor may still request the court. Restrict or prohibit the defendant and his defender from accessing relevant documents in appropriate ways (please refer to Article 93, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Criminal Procedure Law).

In addition, the Judicial Yuan Justice's Interpretation No. 737 found: "Whether the principle of equality of arms should be adopted in the custody review process should depend on whether it adopts a trial structure. The current criminal procedure law does not adopt a trial structure, that is, The application of the principle of equality without weapons is also worth noting.