Recognizing Vulnerable Individuals in Legal Proceedings

According to news reports, Lin, a totally blind student at The Affiliated Senior High School of National Kaohsiung Normal University, successfully gained admission to a university law department through application and screening, aspiring to become Taiwan's first "blind judge"! He remarked, "Vulnerable groups usually do not understand the law very well and are unable to fight for their own rights and interests, which results in them becoming even more vulnerable—this is a vicious cycle."

Hearing these words deeply resonates with us! Instances where ordinary people, due to a lack of legal knowledge, face illegal investigations by police and prosecutors or verbal discrimination by judges in trials are still numerous, let alone vulnerable individuals. Beyond having to navigate an unfriendly society in daily life, once placed inside the chilly and formal atmosphere of criminal proceedings, their presence appears even more fragile. Past judicial reforms for vulnerable groups in Taiwan have mostly focused on hardware construction, such as improving barrier-free access in courts, with only a minority providing specialized personnel stationed at courts to assist. Nevertheless, these measures still fail to bridge the long-standing neglect of vulnerable groups within the judicial system.

Based on the author's multiple experiences observing court proceedings, the judiciary's software reforms lack long-term planning, and various activities within the courtroom remain unfavorable to vulnerable groups. For example, regarding our country's court interpreter system, Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: "If the defendant is deaf, mute, or does not understand the language, an interpreter may be used." Article 98 of the Court Organization Act provides: "If parties to litigation, witnesses, expert witnesses, and other related persons do not understand the national language, an interpreter shall interpret for them." Although the Judicial Yuan website has established an "Interpreter Talent Database," while the formal legal basis and roster of talent exist, the substantive operations have failed to fulfill their intended functions.

How can a party to a lawsuit who cannot understand what the judge, prosecutor, lawyer, or other individuals in the courtroom are saying or asking make full statements and defend themselves? According to Article 14, Paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality, in the determination of any criminal charge against him (referring to the criminal suspect or defendant): "(a) To be informed promptly and in a detail which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court." International standards are as such, yet when observing court interpreters assisting indigenous peoples or migrant workers involved in litigation in Taiwan's courts, instances of mistranslation, omission, or the inability to find an interpreter frequently occur. Even with Taiwanese Hokkien and Hakka, which are commonly used in general Taiwanese society, "talking at cross-purposes" frequently happens where court interpreters "can neither translate nor interpret," falling far short of international standards.

When language barriers arise, the right to employ accurate and effective interpretation is an indispensable requirement for securing a fair trial. This is not only a basic human right but also a natural obligation of the state. In fact, issues such as an interpreter's ability to provide simultaneous and direct interpretation, comprehension of legal terminology, and avoidance of conflicts of interest all directly impact whether a party can receive a fair trial. However, Taiwan's judicial administration authorities have failed to squarely address this issue, reducing court interpreters to mere window dressing and wasting public funds.

Our perception of the courts is already one of being "extremely difficult to approach," let alone for the hearing-impaired, indigenous peoples, new immigrants (such as foreign spouses and laborers), or foreign nationals. Lacking an understanding of courtroom terminology, court proceedings are entirely incomprehensible to them, let alone any possibility of a "defense." Justice should be grounded in the needs of the people. As a country composed of a diverse society, the Judicial Yuan has an absolute necessity to thoroughly review current interpretation issues, implement reforms, guarantee the judicial rights and interests of all ethnic groups, demonstrate respect and tolerance for diverse communities, and bring about the realization of the public's vision of a "fair court" in judicial reform at an early date!