Oh God! Someone Please Help Me?! Press Conference on the Release of the 7th Court Observation Report

The results of year-over-year court observations have led to a general improvement in judges' courtroom demeanor. While judges who are impatient or utter sharp reprimands are still heard of, today's courtrooms appear much more "civilized" compared to those observed five or six years ago, and the proportion of judges capable of respecting parties has increased significantly according to the observation results. However, new problems continue to emerge, which are explained as follows:

1. Polarized Demeanor Among Judges
   After seven years of court observation, it is undeniable that the proportion and degree of improvement in judges' demeanor are quite high. Some judges offer thoughtful greetings, while others patiently admonish the parties. This not only allows the parties to experience the humane and warm side of the courtroom but also touches observers, thereby enhancing trust and affection for the courts. However, even though some judges perform admirably, public grievances complaining about poor judicial demeanor have never ceased. The issue of judicial demeanor was also mentioned in the child-carrying self-immolation case that occurred this year. Amidst such emotionally antagonistic issues, parties do not ask for much—merely respect as human beings. When encountering judges who are frequently impatient, glare fiercely, or adopt suspicious and provocative tones, it is hardly surprising that parties cannot swallow this injustice and complain that coming to court is an insult to their dignity.
   As for the excuses most frequently used by judges to reject parties, they are: "Too busy!" and "You don't understand yet you still dare to sue!". From the perspective of the parties standing below the bench, however, neither being too busy nor lacking legal knowledge should be the responsibility of the parties. When citizens enter the court, the judiciary has an obligation to provide a fair trial environment and impartial results, rather than shifting work pressure onto the parties or treating the public uniformly as "litigious rabble" or "vexatious litigants" with contemptuous and antagonistic attitudes. Such actions not only needlessly create antagonism between the public and the courts but will also further erode public trust in the courts.
   In the face of relentless public grievances regarding courtroom demeanor, we also demand that various courts establish effective windows to handle such grievances. Through internal administrative mechanisms, and without affecting the substantive adjudication of cases, judges should be required to improve their trial demeanor rather than forcing parties to repeatedly bite their tongues in silence or remain tight-lipped out of fear of adverse outcomes in ongoing cases. Otherwise, how can such disrespectful judges arrogantly speak of protecting human rights?
   
2. Who Can Help Me?!—Urgent Need of the Legal Aid Fundamental Act!
   Judging from this year's observation results, the most obvious difference is that parties without counsel (whether in civil or criminal cases) easily become the vulnerable minority in the courtroom. They are either easily ignored by judges or unable to meet courtroom requirements due to poor expression skills or unfamiliarity with specialized legal modes of expression, rendering them incapable of defending themselves. Coupled with the panic and fear caused by unfamiliarity with legal procedures, these unrepresented parties have practically lost half their case before the trial even begins! Except for offenses carrying a statutory minimum penalty of over three years, where the law mandates the state to provide a public defender, other parties can only experience what is likely the only trial of their lives in weakness and trembling! Furthermore, ever since the Taipei and Miaoli District Courts began pilot programs for prosecutors to attend trials throughout their entirety, unrepresented parties in criminal cases have been placed at an even greater disadvantage, creating a situation characterized as "judges and prosecutors joining forces to crack down on defendants." In view of this, giving birth to the Legal Aid Fundamental Act can be said to be an urgent issue! If this bill cannot be passed as soon as possible in the Legislative Yuan, people who cannot afford lawyers will find it difficult to obtain equal attack and defense in the courtroom, thereby losing the trial foundation of equality of arms.
   
3. "Court Interpreters" Who Neither Understand Nor Translate?
   Aside from the stark disadvantage presented by unrepresented defendants in the courtroom, records from the court observations also reveal that observers generally question the existence of "court interpreters."
   Because court interpreters currently fail to perform the function of "communication and translation" in the courtroom at all, actual cases show that the vast majority of interpreters not only lack proficiency in English—an international language—but even speak Taiwanese Hokkien or Hakka worse than the judges, requiring the judges to remind and correct them from the side. This inevitably makes one wonder: if encountering parties who genuinely need translation, how on earth can current court interpreters provide assistance? How does the judiciary protect parties who require different languages (or even sign language)? Are court interpreters in the courts rendered utterly useless? And how can such parties enjoy equal trials?
   Moreover, there is no shortage of another type of interpreter who is even more "majestic" than the judges, leaving parties below the bench confused as to why someone in the courtroom can be fiercer than the judge. Such phenomena compel one to question: what is the value of an interpreter's existence? If it is merely to press a tape recorder or hand over evidence, it would seem that court bailiffs could handle these tasks, eliminating the need to increase the personnel burden of judicial administration. We must further question: what are the qualifications for the position of interpreter? What is the examination and selection procedure? How are performance evaluations conducted? Is there a fair competitive method, or has it degenerated into a convenient position for those in power to plant their personal connections? The Judicial Yuan should provide explanations addressing the public's doubts regarding interpreters, make the appointment qualifications and examination procedures for interpreters open and transparent to eliminate malpractice, and further explain the necessity of interpreters' existence. Otherwise, next year the Legislative Yuan should cut the Judicial Yuan budget allocated to interpreters and redirect judicial expenditure toward items capable of better supporting judicial trials.
   
4. Prosecutors' Attendance at Trials
   Judging from the observation record sheets, the situation of prosecutors attending trials remained chaotic and went through the motions like a mere formality prior to July. The extent of improvement after the Taipei District Prosecutors Office implemented full-trial attendance in July still requires further observation and supervision. However, since the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office has not implemented full-trial attendance, what role will prosecutors play once cases tried through full-trial attendance in the district courts enter the High Prosecutors Office? Will they still be entirely unable to function? This requires serious consideration.
   
5. Specialization of Judicial Officers
   The issue of judicial specialization is easily highlighted during special cases; in ordinary cases, it is only possible to discern whether a judge's social experience is sufficiently rich. Methods of specialization include more widespread establishment of specialized courts, allowing judges to remain in their positions for extended periods, and coordinating with in-service training so that judges can elevate their questioning and adjudication quality, thereby providing more accurate trial outcomes.
   
6. The Long-Standing Problem of Minutes
   The speed at which court clerks prepare minutes continues to be the primary factor obstructing the smooth progression of trials. Most observers mentioned that trial speed must accommodate court clerks' typing speeds, leading to delays. Aside from a handful of court clerks boasting impressive typing speeds, courtroom pace remains stagnant under the control of clerks' fingertips. Regarding this problem, which is appealed to every year, the Judicial Yuan should, in addition to training court clerks, promptly propose more efficient and thorough solutions. In particular, the current problem with clerk minutes has only resolved the character-recognition issue of "handwritten changing to typed," failing to resolve issues regarding speed and the completeness of minutes. Parties must still endure courtroom records that are "summarized and streamlined" or potentially lose their original meaning.
   

Excerpts from the Judicial Reform Foundation's 7th Court Observation Report

The Bitterness of Parties

• Without representation by counsel, the only person attending is the isolated and weak defendant.
• A certain party (male) ultimately shed tears in the courtroom because he was physically and mentally exhausted over this case (lasting more than two years), the other party owed him over 800,000 NTD and refused to repay it (entrusted to sell gemstones), and he also encountered unemployment, having to work part-time in a convenience store, exhausted every day. Today, he even had to make a special trip north (only to be roared at like a lion by the judge) and had no money to hire counsel.
  1. The phenomenon of litigation delay is severe.
  2. Judges' volume should be moderate, and wording should avoid casual inclusion of value judgments; otherwise, it will leave legally unversed parties at a loss.
  3. The functions of public defenders need to be expanded.
  4. Judges, lawyers, and prosecutors should all undergo in-service training.
• Fair, but repeatedly interrupts the parties' statements, telling them not to say unnecessary things. Especially since one of the parties had no money to hire a lawyer and did not know how to present evidence, and almost got cursed out thoroughly.
• When the party failed to notice retrieving their ID card, which had a note for the next hearing date tucked inside, they entered the courtroom to ask the interpreter about the next hearing date. The interpreter responded ungraciously: "When your ID was returned, didn't you get a piece of paper? Why weren't you listening?!" The party groped in their pocket, pulled out a piece of paper, bowed toward the courtroom, and walked out. At that moment, I simply felt that as a party in the courtroom, lacking money for a lawyer and legal knowledge, one can only bow their head humbly and respond with submissive acquiescence to other people's rudeness. Putting aside whether the defendant is guilty or not, human dignity is precisely what is most easily lost in the courtroom—isn't this deeply ironic?

Judges' Demeanor

• Judge: Why are you suing both Li and Tu at the same time? Plaintiff: Because the housing contract was signed with Li, but he subleased it to Tu for use. Judge: Did you know Li subleased it to Tu? Plaintiff: Yes. Judge: Then why are you still suing Li? Plaintiff: Because the contract was made with Li... Judge: Wrong, XXXXX (could not understand what she was saying), you can't even get this straight; take this back and amend the statement of claims within ten days before coming back. Plaintiff: I'm sorry, what did you just say...? Judge: Look, exactly like this. You come to sue when you can't even get this straight, how do I have the time... (turns head to speak with the clerk). Plaintiff: Excuse me judge, may I speak? Judge: Not allowed!
  • The above dialogue fails to fully convey the harsh and rough tone with which the judge reprimanded the people.
  • The people mostly do not understand the law. When they come to the court seeking assistance, judges have no right to be impatient, let alone the right to scold the people.
  • While the authority of the substantive content of a judge's judgment is undeniably unchallengeable, the discourtesy and rudeness of a judge's adjudication process ought to be supervised. While a judge as an adjudicator of justice is supreme, a judge as a servant of the people should not place themselves above the tax-paying public. (Note: This case was a direct complaint by a party)
• Rough cursing; quite a terrible judge, needs continued observation.
• Too fond of directing litigation, and with a very loud voice. He even interferes with the parties speaking, and if they say too much they get scolded.
• Fair, but repeatedly interrupts the parties' statements, telling them not to say unnecessary things. Especially since one of the parties had no money to hire a lawyer and did not know how to present evidence, and almost got cursed out thoroughly.
• The judge gets very fierce and raises their voice: "I am asking you... right?" He only allows the other party to answer with exact answers; if they add extra details he gets displeased and cuts them off.
• Suggestive threats, such as saying: If you appeal, the cases will be combined for review and you will only be sentenced more heavily!
• No particular bias observed, but judges should give both sides and witnesses a complete and continuous opportunity to state their opinions, and cannot yell people back just because they do not want to hear it. I almost got a heart attack!
• The judge did not use so-called discriminatory language when interrogating the defendant, but flashed a look of contempt toward the defendant, as if the person being interrogated had committed a heinous crime.
• The judge's demeanor was relatively calm and did not involve scolding or threats. It just felt that the attitude toward the interrogated person was unfriendly, with eyes revealing a look of disdain or contempt for the defendant.
• The associate judge had no name badge, and when the original assigned judge for the last case left, another judge came in—also without a name badge!

Prosecutors Not Attending Trials or Merely Going Through the Motions

• There are 104 observation reports recording prosecutors who were supposed to attend but failed to appear.
• The prosecutors' problem truly needs to be properly resolved. Otherwise, as is currently the case, even when prosecutors attend trials, they just sit there doing nothing (idling around), focusing entirely on form with zero substantive significance! Moreover, they probably schedule only one or two attending prosecutors an afternoon; otherwise, people wouldn't be fighting over them! Furthermore, that attending prosecutor even frowned and asked the court clerk if there were any more cases, to which the clerk apologetically replied, "Sorry, sorry! There's still one here!" It is truly outrageous. It is said that a prosecutor's attendance at trial is an "obligation to appear"; how did it end up becoming something that inconveniences the prosecutor? Hopefully, after June of this year, this situation can genuinely improve and truly exercise the function of the cross-examination system!
• Judge: "Has the prosecutor not arrived yet?!" Bailiff: "Yes, hasn't arrived yet." Judge: "Just drag him over first! Wasn't he just next door?!" Prosecutor: "I still have a case next door, so I'll take my leave first!" Judge: "Because the prosecutor has another case, he is taking his leave first. After June, this won't happen anymore! Prosecutors must attend trials throughout."
• Arrived after waiting several minutes. Upon arrival, although not chanting the "six-character mantra," he merely read straight from the indictment in a very soft voice. The rest of the time was spent flipping through the indictment, and in the end, he even took his leave from the judge!
• The prosecutor was bored and started twirling a pen and flipping through legal codes. This observation was probably the best overall: the judge handled procedures well, the court clerk recorded very quickly, the interpreter did not look idle (constantly busy with various tasks), and the bailiff did not constantly look around. Aside from the prosecutor portion (as mentioned above), there was truly nothing to pick on. In a copyright infringement case, the judge emphasized that "before implementing the cross-examination system, questioning must still be conducted by the judge." Having heard of such a situation during class already felt strange, and observing it in court made it even clearer that such a system is somewhat pointless. It looks like the trial interrogation structure will undergo a major transformation after June this year, and I must come back to take a look then!!
• The "attending prosecutor" for the morning and afternoon was the same person, so...
• No, the attending prosecutor came solely for the conclusion of oral argument, and their remarks were merely "as stated in the indictment" and "please render judgment in accordance with the law," going through the motions like a formality, and hastily leaving after the arguments concluded.
• Should judges' questioning of witnesses be scheduled after lawyers question them, akin to the Anglo-American investigative procedure? Since judges are neutral roles, expecting them to simultaneously question witnesses from the perspective of the defendant vs. the prosecutor is asking too much! Besides, what are lawyers and prosecutors there for if left unused? For lawyers to tell judges the questions they want to ask, and then have the judge question the defendant—isn't this redundant?

Interpreters or Court Clerks

• When the party failed to notice retrieving their ID card, which had a note for the next hearing date tucked inside, they entered the courtroom to ask the interpreter about the next hearing date. The interpreter responded ungraciously: "When your ID was returned, didn't you get a piece of paper? Why weren't you listening?!" The party groped in their pocket, pulled out a piece of paper, bowed toward the courtroom, and walked out. At that moment, I simply felt that as a party in the courtroom, lacking money for a lawyer and legal knowledge, one can only bow their head humbly and respond with submissive acquiescence to other people's rudeness. Putting aside whether the defendant is guilty or not, human dignity is precisely what is most easily lost in the courtroom—isn't this deeply ironic?
• The party in this case was elderly and did not understand Mandarin. Thereafter, the judge conversed with them in Taiwanese Hokkien. The judge not only understood it but even corrected the interpreter's translation (Could it be that the court interpreter only knows Taiwanese Hokkien? And speaks Taiwanese Hokkien worse than the judge?!).
• The court clerk slumped over the reception desk from beginning to end. When they finally sat up, they were dozing off. Quite leisurely, sleeping away the entire morning!
• No major problems. On the contrary, I saw the interpreter frequently asking parties to take their places in a resounding voice, or repeating the judge's words or explaining them in more plain language—for example, explaining to a party what a "statement of claims" means, or sitting directly in their seat and shouting loudly to a party: "A judicial divorce is not better for you!"

Judicial Professionalism

• When interest calculation issues were discussed in court, neither the defendant nor the judge understood them clearly!
• This case involved reporting taxes using workers' headcounts. The judge said that since childhood they had helped their father tally workers, so they had considerable experience.
• The judge looked quite young, but there was nothing sufficient to determine whether they possessed adequate social experience.
• The cases observed did not involve special needs for professional knowledge. However, in terms of social experience, it was evident that the judge was not entirely out of touch with reality; instead, they were able to grasp the facts of the case using their experience or information obtained through inquiry.
• This case pertained to ambiguities regarding authorization in engineering. Judging from the questions raised by the judge, they were quite able to grasp the case.
• I feel it was somewhat insufficient. How could a salesperson and a parallel trader be the same?
• Sufficient. Perhaps because they had more experience, they somewhat ignored basic procedural requirements, such as the presumption of innocence, occasionally pointing out that the defendant was very good at arguing.

Slow Process of Minutes

• Statements were repeatedly interrupted, but the sole reason was that the court clerk typed too slowly and needed everyone to wait a bit longer.
• The preparation of minutes was too slow, which further prolonged trial time.
• The court clerk in this courtroom typed somewhat slowly, and the judge had to dictate to the clerk to type. In addition, the clerk frequently made typos, forcing the judge to correct them while proceeding, making the speed very slow.
• It feels like court clerks should have an additional typing test, because half the time is frequently spent waiting for typing.
• Slow preparation of minutes.

Court Bailiffs

• The bailiff reminded everyone to turn off their phones, not to talk, not to drink water... yet I heard their own phone ringing.
• Shortly after the questioning in this case began, the bailiff said to me, "Are you a party?" I said I was observing from the gallery and showed my student ID. They said, "You can observe, but you cannot take notes, that's the rule." I said, "I should be able to! The gallery rules don't say taking notes isn't allowed." Bailiff: "You cannot take notes in the courtroom. Are you going to put it away, or should I ask you to leave?!" At this point, the judge continued questioning the witness and did not see me talking with the bailiff. The bailiff made a motion to take away my notebook, so I had no choice but to put it away and take notes after coming out post-observation.