The Judicial Reform Foundation Visits Minister of Justice Ch'en Ting-nan

The Judicial Reform Foundation is scheduled to visit Minister of Justice Ch'en Ting-nan on Wednesday, February 21, from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Attendees will include JRF Chairman and Attorney Ch'en Ch'uan-yüeh, Standing Executive Committee Members Attorney Ku Li-hsiung, Attorney Lin Yung-sung, and Attorney Huang Hsü-t'ien, as well as Executive Director Wang Shih-szu. This marks the second official visit by the JRF since Minister Ch'en assumed office. The meeting is expected to present recommendations on several recent human rights cases and request that the Ministry of Justice follow the Judicial Yuan's lead in publishing judgments online by also publishing indictments and appeals online.

Scheduled Topics for Discussion

1. Human Rights Cases

1. The Hsu Tzu-chiang Case
   Regarding the Hsu Tzu-chiang death penalty case, which the JRF petitioned the Control Yuan to investigate, the Control Yuan has completed its investigation report, concluding that there were indeed procedural flaws in the investigation of this case, and has petitioned the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal. Therefore, we request that the Minister temporarily suspend the execution of the death penalty and urge the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal.
2. The Su Ping-k'un Case
   Although the President pardoned Su Ping-k'un's conviction and sentence, the Ministry of Justice has failed to hold the relevant negligent personnel accountable, nor has it ever affirmed the prosecutor who assisted Su Ping-k'un in filing for a retrial. To date, the judiciary has yet to review the misjudgment and negligence in this case.

2. The Hsing-p'iao Case

1. In the Hsing-p'iao case, Prosecutor Hung T'ai-wen rendered a non-prosecution disposition under circumstances of insufficient investigation, unclear evidence, and procedural controversy, sparking renewed skepticism from all sectors regarding the standards by which prosecutors handle cases. While the Ministry of Justice certainly cannot interfere in individual cases, it should still fulfill its administrative supervisory responsibility to understand whether Prosecutor Hung's investigation of this case involved illegal negligence or dereliction of duty.
2. Because Prosecutor Hung departed from customary practice in the Hsing-p'iao case by traveling to the suspect's home to conduct interrogations, raising public doubts as to whether prosecutors apply different handling standards depending on the individual, we urge the Ministry of Justice to formulate standard operating procedures for prosecutors handling cases to prevent disparate treatment of defendants, witnesses, or other related parties.
3. The Hsing-p'iao case reflects another systemic issue: how to establish a remedy procedure for cases where prosecutors issue non-prosecution dispositions.

3. Publishing Indictments and Appeals Online

Following the Judicial Yuan's completion of publishing judgments online to provide public review and assist in case analysis and research, the Ministry of Justice should likewise publish documents online, including indictments, appeals, non-prosecution dispositions, prosecutors' statements of reasons for not appealing, and the Prosecutor-General's reasons for dismissing applications for extraordinary appeals. This will enable the public to oversee various prosecutorial dispositions and thereby accumulate case law research related to our country's prosecutorial dispositions and indictments.

4. Hastily Formulated Decision-Making Process for the Improvement Plan for Pseudo-Property Crime Cases

The "Improvement Plan for Pseudo-Property Crime Cases" recently announced by the Ministry of Justice drastically excludes the possibility of pursuing criminal litigation for private transactional behavior. Not only was this policy formulated without any prior empirical socio-legal investigation of social conditions, nor any external consultation process, but it directly curtails the people's right to litigation, making the decision-making process crude and hasty. Formulating policies purely from the perspective of reducing prosecutors' workloads is an irresponsible legal policy.