Prosecutors, Are You Exhausted? ~ "Hunting Down Rogue Prosecutors" Press Conference Series (IV)

Can "job relocation" serve as an excuse for an "overdue interlocutory appeal"? Does a prosecutor's retirement mean the case is closed and no further accountability is needed? When a procedural blunder causes an appeal to miss the deadline, is the court always to blame? Blaming the court because "the service procedure does not conform to convention"? Legal service is either legal or illegal; what is "convention"? Is it a "bad habit" or a "convention"? When evidence was submitted by the prosecutor themselves, they shift the blame to "judicial misjudgment" and wash their hands of it completely? The Supreme Court in black and white severely criticized a prosecutor for failing to write an appeal brief, yet the Ministry of Justice remains silent and feels no wrongdoing on its part? Where does this leave the rights and interests of victims? Having finally reluctantly admitted that the prosecutor violated the Ministry of Justice's mandated "sophisticated investigation" policy, there is no disciplinary action whatsoever? Just "having a meeting and giving a lecture" to call it a day? Is this implying to prosecutors nationwide that "sophisticated investigation" does not need to be taken too seriously?

On November 29, December 8, 2011, and March 29, 2012, our Foundation successively held three press conferences in this series, publishing a total of nine judicial cases related to the execution of duties by prosecutors, directly pointing out deficiencies related to overzealous prosecution or hasty appeals by the prosecutors in charge. Although the Ministry of Justice issued preliminary responses via press releases on the same days, promising to look deeply into the many individual cases published by our Foundation and pledging to review and discipline personnel based on the circumstances if negligence is indeed found, it only grudgingly agreed to announce the investigation results by the end of April under relentless questioning by legislators. Yet, breaking its promise once again, it delayed its response until the end of May under mounting external pressure. However, the relevant explanations and handling procedures played with semantics, evaded the crux of the matter, and showed zero sincerity.

First, regarding the points raised for questioning, the Ministry kept silent on the vast majority, talked about irrelevant matters to dodge the issue, and attempted to fish in troubled waters and shift the focus. Furthermore, after offering empty rhetoric, it immediately drew the conclusion that the prosecutors had committed no negligence whatsoever. Moreover, even in cases where negligence was acknowledged, the disciplinary actions against the relevant personnel were ambiguous and dragged out, seemingly intending merely to "weather the storm" so that once public oversight subsided, everything would pass without a trace. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the Ministry said not a single word about establishing general, systemic mechanisms to understand and hold prosecutors accountable for negligence and hastiness in handling cases. Clearly, the investigation results of the Ministry of Justice were merely meant to cope with external pressure; strengthening control or review measures for sophisticated case handling is evidently not its priority.

Our Foundation cannot accept the Ministry of Justice's tendency to shield its own and cling to old habits. In addition to continuing the operation of our hunting team to irregularly publish individual case details for public reference, we do not rule out directly submitting the published cases to the Control Yuan for investigation and accountability.

Today, we also make public three individual cases conclusively judged not guilty by the Supreme Court, pointing out specific deficiencies in the prosecutors' handling of these cases for public reference. The main outlines of the cases are as follows:

1. Coerced Confession Exposed and Loss of Face, Prosecuting Perjury to Salvage Pride?!

   Cause of Action and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Responsible?
   "Perjury" Prosecuted by Changhua District Prosecutors Office (96th Year, Chen-Zi No. 1560) Changhua District Court judgment on 2008/7/16 failed to review the prosecutor's coerced confession, defendant found guilty (97th Year, Su-Zi No. 463) Defendant appealed to Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court: Not Guilty! (97th Year, Shang-Su-Zi No. 2037) Taichung Branch Prosecutors Office appealed again to Supreme Court: Not Guilty Again! (100th Year, Tai-Shang-Zi No. 2250)	Prosecuted; first-instance court failed to review the prosecutor's coerced confession, resulting in the defendant being found guilty Defendant appealed; second instance found not guilty! Appealed again, not guilty again!	During the investigation, the prosecutor first used improper methods such as intimidation and coercion of detention to force the defendant to "cooperate" in obtaining a confession. During the trial, the defendant's statements were inconsistent, and the charge of perjury was immediately brought. The judge who reviewed the interrogation audio-video disk clearly pointed out: "Such investigative methods can hardly be attributed to an occasional or temporary oversight, and certainly cannot be tolerated in a civilized society governed by the rule of law and human rights"! Yet the second-instance prosecutor ignored this completely and insisted on appealing to the very end?!	Changhua District Prosecutors Office? Prosecuting Prosecutor? Taichung Branch Prosecutors Office? Appealing Prosecutor?

2. Living the Good Life as a High Prosecutors Office Prosecutor Part I: No Need to Write a Brief, Appeal to the End Anyway!

   Cause of Action and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Responsible?
   "Forgery of Documents" Second Instance: Not Guilty Taiwan High Prosecutors Office appealed to Supreme Court: Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds! (100th Year, Tai-Shang-Zi No. 3206)	Second Instance: Not Guilty Appealed to third instance, prosecutor failed to write a brief, dismissed on procedural grounds! Second Instance: Not guilty appealed to third instance, prosecutor failed to write a brief, dismissed on procedural grounds!	Second Instance: Not guilty appealed to third instance, prosecutor failed to write a brief, dismissed on procedural grounds!	Taiwan High Prosecutors Office? Appealing Prosecutor?

3. Living the Good Life as a High Prosecutors Office Prosecutor Part II: Ignore Legal Amendments, Just Copy and Paste to Appeal?!

   Cause of Action and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Responsible?
   "Forgery of Negotiable Instruments" First and Second Instances: Both Not Guilty Taiwan High Prosecutors Office Appealed Supreme Court: Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds! (100th Year, Tai-Shang-Zi No. 5309)	First and second instances both not guilty Appealed to third instance, appeal unlawful, dismissed on procedural grounds!	According to the Law for Speedy Trial, cases found not guilty in both the first and second instances generally cannot be appealed further. To appeal, clear and sufficient legal grounds must be presented. The prosecutor completely ignored the Law for Speedy Trial; do they not understand, not know, or simply disrespect the law?	Taiwan High Prosecutors Office? Appealing Prosecutor?

We must still solemnly warn the Ministry of Justice:

1. Promptly establish concrete methods for general understanding and accountability regarding instances of abuse of power or negligence by individual prosecutors in handling cases.
2. The Ministry of Justice should propose concrete measures to strictly control the quality of prosecutors' indictments and appeals in order to safeguard the rights and interests of litigants.
3. Regarding the 9 negligent cases already pointed out, the Ministry of Justice is clearly unwilling to hold anyone accountable and intent on shielding its own; our Foundation does not rule out directly filing a complaint with the Control Yuan to allow an external mechanism to pursue accountability.

Press Contact

Attorney Lin Feng-cheng, CEO, Judicial Reform Foundation 02-25231178