An "Angry Bird" Prosecutor? Even Crime Victims Treated Like Idiots!

Since the Foundation held a press conference on 2012/04/17 exposing Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu's poor courtroom demeanor, we have received 13 public complaints within a mere two weeks regarding Prosecutor Lin's poor demeanor and inappropriate speech and conduct during court hearings. Among them, three cases have obtained the consent of the parties involved and will be submitted to the Prosecutor Review Commission.

Article 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: "The interrogation of a defendant shall be conducted with an earnest attitude; violence, threats, inducement, fraud, exhaustive interrogation, or any other improper methods shall not be used." Article 2 establishes the "duty of objectivity" for prosecutors, requiring them to "pay equal attention to circumstances favorable and unfavorable to the defendant." Therefore, a prosecutor's duty is to investigate objective evidence and then decide whether to indict the defendant based on the law and their own conviction. Casually berating defendants in court is definitely not a statutory power of a prosecutor, nor can it possibly be a privilege; rather, it is a toxic legacy of feudal, authoritarian ideology.

On April 17, 2012, the Judicial Reform Foundation held a press conference to release courtroom recording tapes from a traffic accident case (100th Year, Chen-Tzu No. 5511) handled in March 2011 by Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. The prosecutor's demeanor during the hearing was arrogant and authoritarian, completely lacking the objectivity expected of a prosecutor. Whether addressing defendants or victims (and in other cases, even witnesses), his remarks were filled with sarcasm and ridicule, failing to uphold the prosecutor's institutional duty to represent the state in prosecuting crimes through rigorous evidence-based verification. Not only does this bring shame to the rule of law, but it also chronically erodes public trust in the judiciary. Although the Taipei District Prosecutors Office hastily convened a performance evaluation committee that very night and resolved to propose a reprimand to the Ministry of Justice, beyond concerns that this punishment is overly lenient, the Ministry of Justice has remained passively inactive and has yet to provide any substantive response.

However, following the press conference on April 17 and the subsequent media coverage, our Foundation received a considerable number of complaint calls, all of which specifically named Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. They accused Prosecutor Lin of an arrogant and authoritarian courtroom style that has persisted for a long time and is not an isolated incident, rendering the situation truly severe.

Worse still, quite a few people have lodged named or anonymous reports with the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, the Department of Government Ethics, the Ministry of Justice, and other units, only for them to vanish like stones dropped into the sea, with no replies or news whatsoever. This does nothing less than substantiate the public's suspicions of officials shielding one another. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Ministry of Justice's so-called "self-supervisory measures"—such as the "Prosecutor-General Mailbox," the "Department of Prosecutorial Affairs Mailbox," questioning demeanor questionnaires, designated personnel spot-checks of recording (and video) logs, and interviews with colleagues participating in hearings—have completely failed. They allow prosecutors to hide behind the protective umbrella of "non-disclosure of investigative proceedings" without supervision, roaring in anger in secret corners and harming the people.

We believe that no matter how extensive a defendant's criminal record is or how much they deserve punishment, the majority of prosecutors cannot endorse Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu's courtroom approach. In legal practice, the common resolution for traffic accident cases—provided they do not result in major casualties—is for prosecutors or judges to urge both parties to settle, hoping to value harmony above all else. There is simply no reason for a prosecutor to be hostile to a defendant and, conversely, demand that a victim not settle with them.

Moreover, rather than standing in the victim's shoes to "speak out" for them, Prosecutor Lin in this case was merely flexing his bureaucratic authority, going so far as to mock and ridicule the victim without a shred of compassion.

Therefore, in addition to the recordings of him berating the defendant, our Foundation will: 1. Continue to release recordings of the prosecutor berating the victim during court hearings as proof; 2. Successively submit other individual cases, where parties are unwilling to be publicly exposed, to the Prosecutor Review Commission for review; 3. Invite Attorney Chang Tse-p'ing, who was appointed by the party at the time, to explain the grievances suffered by the party during the process and the agony of enduring them in silence; and 4. Invite one of the parties to come forward and explain the situation of being berated by Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu. Since existing avenues of appeal have proven ineffective, they can only pin their hopes on the Prosecutor Review Commission to investigate case by case the incidents of Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu's appalling courtroom demeanor and restore justice.

Furthermore, we also believe that the condoning and shielding attitude of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office and the Ministry of Justice is precisely the breeding ground that nurtures terrible prosecutors to harm the public and causes a lack of public trust in the judiciary. We hope that both aforementioned units will uphold the resolve that one must first correct oneself before attempting to correct others, face this individual case with utmost seriousness, conduct a comprehensive investigation into Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu's courtroom audio recordings, and match the Judicial Yuan's prompt and unshielding resolve when dealing with unsuited judges. Meanwhile, we believe that the existing institutional measures of "self-supervision" have clearly failed. As can be seen from the Taipei District Prosecutors Office's "Statistical Analysis Table of Prosecutors' Punctuality and Courtroom Demeanor Surveys"—where the "Analysis Table" (shown in the table below) displays "zero" instances of poor demeanor—is this merely an attempt to whitewash and gloss over problems? As a policymaking unit, the Ministry of Justice should also propose general solutions to address poor courtroom demeanor among prosecutors.

Statistical Analysis Table of Courtroom Demeanor of Prosecutors (including Prosecutor Investigators) of the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office for 2012

	1/15～2/14	2/15～3/14	3/15～4/14
Total Questionnaires Distributed	1560	1650	1680
Total Questionnaires Recovered	184	175	142
Questionnaire Recovery Rate	11.79 %	10.61 %	8.45 %
Number of Interrogation Demeanor Spot-Checks	0	2	1
Number of Poor Demeanor Cases Found via Questionnaires and Spot-Checks	0	0	0

Actions of This Press Conference

1. One of the parties involved came forward to explain the situation of being berated by Prosecutor Lin Kuan-yu.
2. Releasing recordings of the prosecutor berating not only the defendant, but also the victim.
3. Submitting other individual cases, where parties are unwilling to be publicly exposed, to the Prosecutor Review Commission for review.
4. Inviting Attorney Chang Tse-p'ing, who was appointed by the parties at the time, to explain the grievances he suffered.

Press Contacts

Attorney Kao Jung-chih, Office Director, Judicial Reform Foundation 02-25231178