Statement by the JRF Regarding Decision No. 1 Issued by the Prosecutor Evaluation Commission

Our Foundation issues the following statement regarding the decision made by the Prosecutor Evaluation Commission on October 8, 2012:

1. "Better late than never"

1. The Prosecutor Evaluation Commission was established on January 6 of this year. After a full 9 months of review, it has produced only a single decision, falling short of the general public's efficiency expectations.
2. However, "better late than never."

2. "Transfer" is not "dismissal"

1. Under Article 50, Paragraph 1 of the Judges Act, disciplinary sanctions are ranked in order of severity as follows: "dismissal," "removal from office," "transfer," "fine," and "admonition." "Dismissal" entails the complete forfeiture of civil servant status; "removal from office" suspends civil servant status for 1 to 5 years while stripping the individual of prosecutor or judge status; and "transfer" refers to reassignment as a civil servant other than a prosecutor or judge.
2. Therefore, the evaluated prosecutor, Liu Chung-hui, was deemed "unfit" to serve as a prosecutor and received a "transfer" rather than a "dismissal" sanction. It would be advisable to provide a clearer explanation of this to avoid any risk of public confusion.

3. Beyond "rectifying oneself," please also "efficiently" "respond to public grievances"

1. Nevertheless, although the full text of the decision has not yet been published, judging by the outcome, the disciplinary sanction in this case appears relatively severe compared to the past. This demonstrates the Ministry of Justice's proactive referral and the Prosecutor Evaluation Commission's resolution reflect a determination that "to reform others, one must first reform oneself," a development that the public is surely glad to see.
2. Yet, there remains cause for concern. Aside from the review efficiency of the Prosecutor Evaluation Commission, the shadow of "officials protecting officials" still seems difficult to shake. If media reports are correct, the case involving Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu, which was reported by citizens, is also under review. Given that the facts of the case are straightforward and the professional misconduct is obvious, why was it not included in this batch of announcements?
3. Moreover, the severity of the circumstances involving Prosecutor Lin does not seem inferior to those of Prosecutor Liu in the present case (see the live recordings of the preliminary investigative hearings published in two press conferences on our Foundation's website). However, the previous "staunch support" from the Taipei District Prosecutors Office left a deep impression—a stark contrast to Prosecutor Liu, whose case was proactively referred for investigation by the Taitung District Prosecutors Office. Let us wait and see what the outcome will be.

Press Contact

JRF Executive Director, Attorney Lin Feng-cheng 02-25231178