Statement by the JRF Regarding the First Judge Evaluation Decisions

The JRF issues the following statement regarding the decisions made by the Judge Evaluation Commission on September 3:

1. Acknowledging the Judge Evaluation Commission's efforts to promote judicial quality

1. In response to the passage of the Judges Act, the Judge Evaluation Commission began operations on January 6 this year. Following nearly eight months of review, it has finally issued its first two decisions today.
2. Judge Chan Chun-hung of the Taiwan High Court, whom the JRF petitioned for evaluation, and Judge Li Chao-jung of the Taiwan Panchiao District Court, whom the Judicial Yuan actively referred, were recommended for a penalty of two demerits and a referral to the Control Yuan for a six-month suspension from office, respectively. We believe that the repetition of similar cases will gradually diminish, and the JRF affirms the Judge Evaluation Commission's efforts in promoting judicial quality.

2. However, the disciplinary standards in these two individual cases still raise questions

1. Judge Chan mistakenly believed that a case where commutation of a sentence to a fine was "not permitted" could be commuted, and during the court session repeatedly used verbal remarks to entice and hint to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. This led the appellant to accept the erroneous opinion and withdraw the appeal, substantially affecting the people's rights and interests. Meanwhile, Judge Li telephoned other judges during a court session to discuss the case details, and used tones during the mediation process that were either harsh or frivolous and sarcastic, lacking empathy and respect for the people. These were the primary reasons for finding their evaluations well-founded.
2. Judge Chan substantially affected people's rights and interests, while Judge Li damaged the judicial image. Yet, the former was only recommended for "internal" administrative disciplinary action by the Judicial Yuan—getting off with two minor demerits and being able to continue adjudicating cases; whereas Judge Li is to be referred to the "external" Control Yuan, placing her fate beyond the control of the Judicial Yuan. The Control Yuan exercises its powers independently, and Judge Li may possibly face heavier disciplinary action.
3. From this perspective, does the Judicial Yuan seemingly place greater value on saving face for the judicial image than on the substantive rights and interests of the people suffering damage? Compared to the criminal penalties that citizens could have avoided by paying a fine, we wonder if the Judicial Yuan considers two minor demerits to be equitable?

3. Concerns regarding the efficiency of the Judge Evaluation Commission

1. Finally, while the JRF affirms the Judge Evaluation Commission's efforts to promote judicial quality, operating for nearly eight months since January 6 and concluding only two cases—neither of which involved particularly difficult or complex facts and could easily be judged simply by re-verifying the courtroom audio recordings—leaves us truly concerned about such deliberation efficiency.
2. In any event, although the public remains dissatisfied with the content of the Judges Act, even deriding it as a "Judges Protection Act," if the Judge Evaluation Commission can actively shoulder its responsibilities and fulfill a certain gatekeeping function, we believe it will still be somewhat helpful in enhancing judicial quality and slightly mitigate public grievances over the many flaws in the Judges Act.

Press Contact

Lin Feng-cheng, Attorney-at-Law, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation 02-2523-1178