Immediate Appeal against Detention? Mind Human Rights

Car bomb suspect Kao Pao-chung was recently arrested. When prosecutors applied to the court for his detention, the court ruled that he be released on bail instead, causing an immediate public uproar. Not only did the judge presiding over the case face heavy criticism, but the Ministry of Justice also announced that it would accelerate the legislation of an "immediate appeal against detention" system to correct erroneous court rulings on bail.

Whether Kao's specific case met the legal requirements for detention and whether the court should have granted bail are matters for the court to adjudicate according to relevant case files and evidence, which outsiders neither can nor should comment on casually. However, the perspectives and discussions sparked by this incident are well worth pondering.

First, courts exist for the people. Beyond following the law, judges' rulings should also align with the expectations of the general public as much as possible. Therefore, while judges certainly possess a core realm of judicial discretion, they cannot completely detach themselves from society and act arbitrarily; otherwise, they risk violating the principle of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. We believe that courts should apply the same standards to the same cases, ensuring predictability for the public. Otherwise, public trust in the judiciary cannot be established. Regarding detention standards, the attitudes and views adopted by every judge should be as consistent as possible, avoiding lax or inconsistent applications that create unfairness and negatively impact public perception, thereby unnecessarily undermining judicial authority.

Second, the purpose of the court is to realize justice and protect human rights. Strictly speaking, implementing criminal policy to maintain social order is the responsibility of the police and prosecutors. In this incident or the earlier case involving the release of Hsueh Ch'iu, placing all responsibility squarely on the judges is unfair. Whether the evidence gathered by prosecutors and police was thorough, and whether they adequately explained to the judge how the legal requirements for detention were met, are entirely the responsibilities of the police and prosecutors. Inadequate handling by law enforcement naturally makes it easy for the court to mistakenly release a suspect.

Furthermore, after believing the court has mistakenly released a suspect, prosecutors and police are not without recourse. In addition to filing an appeal or gathering more evidence, they can still legally monitor the suspect's whereabouts. If they discover that the criminal suspect truly poses a flight risk, they can certainly reapply for detention. Therefore, neither the United States, Japan, nor Germany has a so-called "immediate appeal against detention" system. The legislative amendments proposed by the Ministry of Justice regarding an "immediate appeal against detention" clearly sacrifice human rights to shirk the negligence and responsibility of prosecutors and police.

According to statistics from the Taiwan High Court on detention appeal cases accepted between January 2003 and September 2004, when prosecutors appealed against a district court's dismissal of a detention application, the High Court found the appeal well-founded in only about 50 percent of the cases. In other words, the current success rate of prosecutorial appeals is only 50 percent. If the "immediate appeal against detention" system is legislated and passed now, calculated based on the number of defendants whose detention applications were filed by prosecutors but dismissed by district courts in 2003 (approximately 959 people), and assuming each person is detained for an additional 24 hours, a total of 23,016 hours of personal freedom would be restricted. The infringement upon human rights is extremely obvious. Therefore, until the success rate of prosecutors' appeals against court dismissals of detention reaches a certain threshold, it is truly inadvisable to rashly adopt the "immediate appeal against detention" system.

In the past, Taiwan's prosecutors and police were accustomed to detaining people first, searching for evidence later, and slowly proceeding to indictment, which fell short of comprehensive human rights protection. In recent years, the public's human rights awareness has surged, and former practices are gradually becoming unacceptable to society. Therefore, we call upon prosecutors and police to replace the bad habit of "detaining people to find evidence" with scientific investigative methods. They should indict suspects immediately once sufficient evidence has been gathered to leave cunning criminals speechless, rather than dragging out the detention until the very last day of the statutory deadline before indicting. Taking this car bomb case as an example, if the police had already grasped sufficient evidence to prove the crime was committed by the defendant, the prosecution should have indicted immediately without first applying for detention.
In fact, aside from detention, prosecutors and police should have many other methods to prevent defendants from fleeing or destroying evidence. Detention should be a last resort. Before prosecutors and police attempt to handle similar cases with greater meticulousness, it is truly inadvisable to rashly sacrifice human rights.

※ Published in: China Times / Forum Square. The original title of this article was <Immediate Appeal: Please Think Twice>