1999 Court Observation Report

Entering its fourth year, the court observation project conducted by the Judicial Reform Foundation has relied on volunteers stationed in courts over long periods. More importantly, it has helped courts adapt to public trials with observers present, narrowing the distance between the public and the court. The court has also made noticeable improvements in user-friendly measures and judges' nameplates, which civic groups readily acknowledge.

However, it must be frankly admitted that from the standpoint of public needs, there are still many areas where the court needs improvement. For example, a small number of judges remain unaccustomed to "public trials with outsiders observing," and subject observers to numerous difficulties. Among them, Judge Ch'en Ping-chang is the most severe. After subjecting observers to serious intimidation on several occasions, no volunteers "dared" to observe his court sessions during the subsequent observation period to avoid unexpected humiliation. More seriously, regardless of whether civic groups filed complaints or the bar association formally referred the case to the Judges Evaluation Committee, no appropriate disciplinary action could be taken against this judge, leaving parties to tremble under his intimidation.

The Judicial Reform Foundation wishes to make it clear that we have no intention of managing judges through regulatory means. We have always hoped and believed that judicial self-discipline is the best way to ensure a sound judiciary. Therefore, we strongly hope to establish a system that allows judges and prosecutors to operate reasonably and function effectively. Taking the widespread delay in court commencement times as an example, while judges certainly face time pressures, litigants who travel back and forth to court for hours only to be questioned for a few minutes cannot be appeased under any circumstances. Consequently, adopting a centralized trial system is an almost unavoidable issue.

Following this wave of observations, we will also re-evaluate the practical benefits of court observation. While the effects of openness and convenience brought to the courts by these observations have yielded results, they have failed to achieve the function of supervising and improving the attitudes of unyielding judges and prosecutors, as well as the bureaucratic mindset of various judicial administrative personnel. Therefore, how to more effectively change the court ecology—making judicial administration service-oriented and judicial trials neutral and objective—will become our most urgent issue in the future.

1. Fifteen Types of Judges, When Will They Ever Be Affable?

   Every word and action of a judge forms a crucial impression of the court for the public. When judges frequently resort to intimidation and impatience, or repeatedly fail to even review case files, how can the public be expected to believe that court judgments are neutral, objective, and free from power, money, or even personal emotions? Therefore, we must emphasize once again that the prestige of the court is built upon high-quality judgments, not on the fear of a judge's ferocity!

2. Prosecutors Consistently Absent, When Will Court Functions Be Implemented?

   The problem of prosecutors failing to attend court or merely going through the motions has persisted for a long time. Even after the Ministry of Justice stated following the National Conference on Judicial Reform that major cases would be attended starting immediately, it failed to fulfill this promise. Not only is the absence rate high, but prosecutors merely read from prepared texts and go through the motions, completely losing the significance of court attendance. How much longer will the Ministry of Justice prevaricate on this point? Will it always content itself with being an obstacle to judicial reform?

3. Ineffective Function of Public Defenders

   The function of public defenders was also a topic of discussion at the National Judicial Reform Conference. Although future plans involve replacing their functions with a legal aid system, how to strengthen the function of public defenders before the legal aid system is established is clearly an issue that deserves attention.

4. Comprehensive Verbatim Stenography for Court Records

   Court records remain an old problem. Not only are the records overly simple and hasty, failing to convince the parties, but the practice of judges repeatedly asking questions so that clerks can record them also significantly impacts the speed of the court. Therefore, what the court needs is not merely computerized records, but stenographic verbatim records, in order to produce records that truly and fully reflect the true intent of the parties.

5. Interpreters, Bailiffs, and Court Clerks Must Return to a Service-Oriented Spirit

   The function of judicial administrative personnel is undoubtedly to assist in the conduct of trials. However, current judicial administrative personnel have become another kind of bureaucracy; not only are bailiffs and court clerks often arrogant and irresponsible, but one can also witness court interpreters acting more grandiose than judges, and bailiffs using the authority of others to intimidate observers. These seemingly supporting court personnel similarly affect the public's perception of the court. The service nature of judicial administrative personnel must receive training and emphasis in order to truly build a court system that is convenient and approachable to the people.

Event Description and Purpose

Court observation is one of the routine large-scale events organized annually by the Judicial Reform Foundation, playing a frontline role in the work of judicial supervision. This work requires a large amount of manpower to go deep into the courts to observe judges' trial conditions and make detailed records. After these record sheets are compiled and analyzed, they become the court observation phenomenon report published by the Foundation at the end of each year.

There are two purposes for the event: first, to create greater social supervisory power to evaluate the courts through publication, and second, to demand that relevant units improve and propose solutions for the judicial problems uncovered through the record sheets.

• Observation Event Period: Late April 1 to October 31, 1999
• Analysis of Observers (Total of 78 observers)
  • High school students preparing for exams: 1
  • College students: 56
  • Graduate students: 2
  • Teachers from various school levels: 7
  • Other volunteers: 11
• Observation Subjects and Selection Method
  • Judges of the Criminal Division / Civil Division, Taiwan High Court
  • Judges of the Criminal Division / Civil Division, Taipei District Court
• Observation Method

  After undergoing basic training courses, observers went to the assigned courts and judges based on sampling distribution to conduct on-site observation and recording. The recording method involved checking and filling in items on the observation sheet one by one.

• Number of Observations and Cases
  • Number of observations: Total of 216 times
  • Number of cases:
    • Taiwan High Court Criminal / Civil Divisions: Total of 959 cases
    • Taipei District Court Criminal / Civil Divisions: Total of 204 cases

Statistical Results

1. Delay in Trial Commencement

   Total Delayed Cases	Taiwan High Court Total Observed Cases: 959 Total Delay Time: 15,337 mins	Percentage	Taipei District Court Total Observed Cases: 204 Total Delay Time: 4,222 mins	Percentage
   Total Delayed Cases	634 cases	66.11%	142 cases	69.61%
   Average Delay Time	24.19 mins / case		29.73 mins / case
   Delay Time 1-29 mins	430 cases	67.82%	85 cases	59.86%
   Delay Time 30-59 mins	158 cases	24.92%	34 cases	23.94%
   Delay Time 60 mins or more	46 cases	7.26%	23 cases	16.20%

2. Did the presiding judge give sufficient statement time to the parties?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Very sufficient	498 / 864	57.64%	145 / 190	76.32%
   Fair	308 / 864	35.65%	36 / 190	18.95%
   Insufficient statement time given	58 / 864	6.71%	9 / 190	4.74%

3. Did the presiding judge give sufficient statement time to defense counsel or agents?

   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Very sufficient	432 / 625	69.12%	80 / 118	67.80%
   Fair	163 / 625	26.08%	20 / 118	16.95%
   Insufficient statement time given	30 / 625	4.80%	9 / 118	7.63%

4. Did the presiding judge give sufficient statement time to witnesses?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Very sufficient	204 / 307	69.12%	32 / 47	68.09%
   Fair	94 / 307	26.08%	15 / 47	31.91%
   Insufficient statement time given	9 / 307	4.80%	0 / 47	0.00%

5. Overall, how do you feel about the presiding judge's questioning attitude?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Very good	372 / 914	40.70%	88 / 193	45.60%
   Fair	480 / 914	52.52%	95 / 193	49.22%
   Very poor	62 / 914	6.78%	10 / 193	5.18%

6. During the investigation procedure, did the prosecutor attend court?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Attended and participated in evidence investigation process	19 / 561	3.39%	0 / 41	0%
   Attended but did not truly participate in evidence investigation	85 / 561	15.15%	1 / 41	2.44%
   No, did not attend	457 / 561	81.46%	40 / 41	97.56%

7. During the trial procedure, did the prosecutor attend court?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Yes, and fully debated statements of parties or defense counsel	12 / 404	2.97%	3 / 126	2.38%
   Yes, but merely read indictment or notice of appeal	102 / 404	25.25%	7 / 126	5.56%
   Yes, but merely recited "Prosecuted as stated in the indictment, judge according to law"	144 / 404	35.64%	21 / 126	16.67%
   Yes, but only appeared at sentencing	1 / 404	0.25%	1 / 126	0.79%
   No, did not attend	100 / 404	24.75%	92 / 126	73.02%
   Other	45 / 404	11.14%	2 / 126	1.59%

8. During collegial panel trials, did the judge-rapporteur attentively listen to statements of parties, agents, or defense counsel?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Yes	261 / 344	75.87%	5 / 5	100%
   No	83 / 344	24.13%	0 / 5	0%

9. During collegial panel trials, did associate judges attentively listen to statements of parties, agents, or defense counsel?

   Taiwan High Court		Taipei District Court
   Options	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage	Checked / Total Cases - Unchecked	Percentage
   Yes	172 / 341	50.44%	5 / 5	100%
   No	169 / 341	49.56%	0 / 5	0%

Comparison with Previous Years

1. Situation of Trial Delays

1. Proportion of trial delays and average delay time per case

   Among the total 959 cases observed at the High Court this year, 634 cases experienced trial delays, accounting for a high proportion of 66.11%, with an average delay of 24.19 minutes per case. At the District Court, out of 204 cases, 142 experienced delays, accounting for a high proportion of 69.61%, with an average delay of 29.73 minutes per case. This means an average of up to 67.86% of litigants had to wait bitterly outside the courtroom for 26.96 minutes, unable to start trials on time.

   Last year, the delay proportion was 69% for the High Court and 68% for the District Court, with average waiting times of 21 minutes and 18 minutes respectively. In 1996, the High Court was 69% and the District Court 72%, with average waiting times of 28 minutes for both. In 1995, the High Court was 74% and the District Court 77%, with average waiting times of 25 minutes for the High Court and 21 minutes for the District Court.

   The figures from the above years show that the situation of trial delays in the High Court and District Court has not improved over the past four years.

2. Proportion of trial delays of 1 to 29 minutes

   This year, litigants who arrived at court on time and had to wait 1 to 29 minutes accounted for 67.82% at the High Court and 59.86% at the District Court.

3. Proportion of trial delays of 30 to 59 minutes

   This year, litigants who arrived at court on time and had to wait 30 to 59 minutes accounted for 24.92% at the High Court and 23.94% at the District Court.

4. Proportion of trial delays exceeding one hour

   This year, litigants who arrived at court on time and had to wait over an hour accounted for 6.71% at the High Court and 4.74% at the District Court.

5. Causes of trial delays

   Delays in preceding cases were the main reason for failing to start trials on time, indicating that judges scheduled trials too densely and allocated insufficient trial times, failing to account for the time actually required for trials. Other causes included litigants arriving late, or waiting for detained defendants or prosecutors, etc.

2. Trial Proceedings

1. Situation of statement time granted to parties by the presiding judge

   The proportion of judges failing to grant sufficient statement time to parties during trials was 6.71% for the High Court and 4.74% for the District Court. In 1998, it was 9% for the High Court and 4% for the District Court; in 1996, it was 7% and 4%. These figures show that High Court judges made slight progress in this regard, while District Court judges showed regression.

2. Situation of statement time granted to defense counsel or agents by the presiding judge

   The proportion of judges failing to grant statement time to defense counsel or agents was 4.8% for the High Court and 7.63% for the District Court. By comparison, the District Court was more severe in this aspect.

3. Situation of statement time granted to witnesses by the presiding judge

   The proportion of presiding judges failing to grant statement time to witnesses was 4.8% at the High Court, indicating that some judges still failed to fully grant witnesses this right.

4. Overall, the presiding judge's questioning attitude

   52.52% at the High Court and 49.22% at the District Court indicated that judges' questioning attitudes were fair, while 6.78% and 5.18% respectively considered judges' questioning attitudes to be very poor.

3. Prosecutor Court Attendance Situation

1. Investigation procedure

   During the investigation procedure, the proportion of prosecutors failing to attend court was as high as 81.46% at the High Court and an even higher 97.56% at the District Court. Last year, the High Court was 94% and the District Court 93%; in 1996, they were 91% and 59% respectively. This shows that prosecutors did not participate in evidence investigation in the vast majority of cases. Although the participation proportion at the High Court grew slightly, the 81.46% absence rate still severely impacts litigants' rights and interests, which clearly contradicts the Judicial Yuan's regulation requiring prosecutors to participate in investigation procedures for major cases.

2. Trial procedure

   • The proportion of prosecutors attending court during the trial procedure and fully debating the statements of parties or defense counsel was only 2.97% at the High Court and 2.38% at the District Court, showing a significant decline compared to last year's attendance rates of 6% and 3% respectively.
   • Attending court but merely reading the indictment or notice of appeal accounted for 25.25% and 5.56%.
   • Merely reciting "Prosecuted as stated in the indictment, please judge according to law" accounted for 35.64% and 16.67%.
   • Appearing only at sentencing accounted for 0.25% and 0.79%.
   • Failure to attend court accounted for 24.75% at the High Court and 73.02% at the District Court.
   • Other situations, meaning prosecutors attended court but did not conduct debates, did not read indictments, or only uttered a few words, accounted for 11.14% at the High Court and 1.59% at the District Court.
   • In total, this year's prosecutor "court attendance" proportion was 75.25% for the High Court and 26.99% for the District Court. Last year, the High Court was 79% and the District Court 32%; in 1996, they were 93% and 80%. The court attendance proportion continues to decline. Prosecutors failing to attend trial courts to perform their duties clearly violates the requirements of procedural law.

Problems and Review

The problems summarized from this year's observation results are:

1. Trial delays still show no obvious improvement

Regarding the proportion of trial delays, while the High Court showed a slight decrease, the average delay time per case increased from the original 21 minutes to 24.19 minutes. For the District Court, not only did the delay proportion increase, but the average delay time per case also increased from the original 18 minutes to 29.73 minutes. Nearly 70% of the public going to court for trials had to endure judges' lack of punctuality and wait bitterly outside the courtroom, with over 30% of them having to wait for more than 30 minutes. Over the past four years, the Judicial Yuan has achieved no significant improvement results regarding this phenomenon. The main reason is that judges schedule cases too densely when setting trial dates, resulting in insufficient trial time and causing severe delays, failing to account for the actual statement time needed by litigants. Immediate improvement should be made.

2. Judges' questioning attitudes still need effort; prosecutors' court functions completely fail to be realized

Only 40% to 50% of people considered judges' overall questioning attitudes during trials to be very good, while about 6% considered judges' questioning attitudes to be very poor, showing that judges' emotional management still needs improvement!

According to relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor's duties include both investigation and the execution of public prosecution. Prosecutors act as plaintiffs in public trials, responsible for the proof of criminal facts, participation in evidence investigations, and debate. In the past, prosecutors in our country placed little weight on public prosecution and focused heavily on investigation, resulting in almost no prosecutor participation in public trial courts. Even in debate courts, those attending court were mostly not the original investigating prosecutors and were unfamiliar with the cases, making it impossible to debate relevant evidence and legal interpretations. Consequently, court attendance was reduced to a mere formality, or even omitted while trial records still contained false entries. Such a situation distorted the principle of trial debate, leaving defendants unable to debate facts and legal principles equally with the plaintiff. Although this erroneous practice has persisted for many years, it ultimately violates the law and infringes upon people's rights to litigation. Based on this observation result, prosecutors attended court in only 10% of investigation procedures, and those truly participating in evidence investigations accounted for less than 2%. If prosecutors are unclear about the formation process of evidence and facts, how can they deliver closing arguments based on the investigation results during debates? Furthermore, prosecutors attending trial courts and debating the substance of cases accounted for less than 3%; all other attendees merely read indictments or notices of appeal, or recited "as stated in the indictment, please judge according to law," without genuinely debating the actual facts. This left defendants and defense counsel not knowing whom to debate with, and raised concerns of role confusion for trial judges. Although the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan required original handling prosecutors to attend the entire course of trials for certain types of cases, judging from this observation result, this requirement has not been thoroughly implemented.