Reflections on the Control Yuan's Proprio Motu Investigation into the Ts'ai Shui-t'ien Case

Recently, regarding the case where Ts'ai Shui-t'ien, head of Kaohsiung's Kuei-li Enterprise, was prosecuted for smuggling 420 kilograms of heroin in 1994 and ultimately acquitted, the Control Yuan initiated a proprio motu investigation and officially requested the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal for relief. This departs significantly from the Yuan's past practice of focusing primarily on human rights rescue and intervening in judicial trials only in cases carrying the risk of wrongful conviction, thus inevitably attracting public attention.

In addition to pointing out numerous flaws in the trial process of this case, the Control Yuan members also questioned the negligence or dereliction of duty of the prosecutors. They noted that the second-instance prosecutor in this case was not the original prosecutor who investigated the drug-trafficking case; yet, this prosecutor failed to summon the anti-narcotics personnel to understand the events, nor did they apply to summon anti-narcotics personnel to testify in court regarding Ts'ai Shui-t'ien's alleged involvement. Furthermore, the prosecutor handling the third retrial failed to actively present evidence and debate in response to the defense attorney's arguments, resulting in the third retrial court dismissing the lawsuit, with no appeal filed and the entire case thus finalized.

Under the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence and the adversarial system emphasized by Taiwan's new criminal procedure laws, the burden of proof for the defendant's criminal facts must be fully shouldered by the prosecutor. However, nearly a year after the implementation of the new criminal procedure system, the performance of Taiwan High Prosecutors Office prosecutors in attending court to execute public prosecution remains less than ideal. In situations where full attendance at trials is not implemented, or where prosecutors attend without adequate preparation, without submitting evidence lists, applications for evidence investigation, or closing arguments to fulfill the burden of proof, and instead simply state "as stated in the appeal brief," the second-instance prosecutors are rendered nominal. Whether they can truly grasp the case facts, conduct effective evidentiary attacks in court, and fully perform the function of prosecuting crime is highly questionable.

Secondly, taking Ts'ai Shui-t'ien's case as an example, which involved major drug trafficking, the prosecutor must have conducted meticulous evidence collection and presented detailed accusations during the investigation before indicting the defendant. Yet, due to the second-instance prosecutor's poor evidentiary presentation and failure to appeal, the case resulted in an acquittal due to insufficient evidence. The negligence and dereliction of duty of the second-instance prosecutor have already created loopholes in the unitary prosecutorial system's collaborative function of prosecuting crime. Whether an internal supervisory mechanism should exist within the prosecution service for the investigation and public prosecution of major cases to ensure the execution of investigation and prosecution—and to further motivate prosecutors to earnestly play their role as representatives of the state in prosecuting crime—deserves consideration.

Furthermore, following its proprio motu investigation, the Control Yuan will request the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal. Since it has recognized several flaws in the trial proceedings by the second-instance prosecutor, should it also issue a corrective measure against the prosecutorial authorities to further rectify the current implementation of the prosecutorial system?

※ Published in: Liberty Times