The Prosecutor-General's Bouncing Ball, the Stumbling Block in the Lo Ming-tsun Case ~ Press Conference on the 49th Application for Extraordinary Appeal in the Lo Ming-ts'un Case

Lo Ming-tsun, former head of the criminal investigation division at the Hsinchuang Precinct, was accused of accepting bribes in breach of his official duties around 1997. Although convicted by the court, the Supreme Court revoked the judgment and remanded the case. In 2002, the Taiwan High Court rendered an altered judgment on retrial (Remand I), acquitting Lo Ming-tsun.

Just when Lo Ming-tsun thought justice had finally cleared his name, the prosecutor "appealed out of time." Failing to notice this, the Supreme Court revoked the acquittal and remanded the case once more. In the end, Lo Ming-tsun suffered a miscarriage of justice and was conclusively sentenced by the court to 13 years in prison.

For years, Lo Ming-tsun and his family have continuously cried foul, petitioning the Prosecutor-General to file an "extraordinary appeal" as many as 48 times, only to be rejected each time under the pretext that Lo Ming-tsun should file for a "retrial" with the court rather than an extraordinary appeal.

Lo Ming-tsun had no choice but to turn to the High Court to apply for a retrial. However, last Thursday (the 16th), when the High Court announced the result of the retrial application, it stated instead that Lo Ming-tsun should petition the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal. The reasoning was that after the acquittal in the Remand I trial years ago, the prosecutor's appeal was filed out of time, meaning that the Lo Ming-tsun case had already become final with an acquittal; under the law, the only way to correct this error is for the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal. (See Taiwan High Court 105th年度聲再字第496號 Ruling)

Chronology of the Out-of-Time Appeal in the Lo Ming-tsun Case

Source: Control Yuan Investigation Report (102年司調字16號), April 10, 2013

The Prosecutor-General Ignores the Prosecutor's Illegality in Appealing Out of Time

Regarding the Lo Ming-tsun case, the Control Yuan concluded in a 2013 investigation that after the Taiwan High Court rendered an acquittal in the Remand I trial, the written judgment was served by a court bailiff to the prosecutor on January 28, 2002, but the prosecutor did not stamp and sign for it until February 18. When the prosecutor filed the appeal on February 25, the 10-day appeal period stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure had already been exceeded.

Dragging out the signing to buy more time to draft the appeal brief was a long-standing bad habit in prosecutorial circles, yet it was a blatant violation of the law. The Supreme Court has also ruled that this practice violates the provisions on the appeal period under the Code of Criminal Procedure (94年度台非字第190號).

Unexpectedly, the Prosecutor-General has repeatedly refused to file an extraordinary appeal, turning a blind eye to the illegality and dereliction of duty by the prosecution.

The Prosecutor-General Ignores the Illegal Coercion of Confessions by Prosecutors and Investigators

The Control Yuan also found in 2013 that prosecutors and investigators used intimidation and scolding to illegally obtain testimony unfavorable to Lo Ming-tsun, with remarks such as: "(Investigator) Do we need to torture you?", "(Investigator) It's just you refusing to tell the truth. Fine then, we suspect you, you're an accomplice.", and "(Prosecutor) If you retract your testimony, it won't be like this, you're committing perjury..." The Prosecutor-General has likewise turned a blind eye to this evidence of illegal conduct by prosecutors and investigators.

The Retrial Court Acknowledges New Evidence That Lo Ming-tsun Did Not Participate in the Crime

This retrial ruling by the Taiwan High Court pointed out that the conviction was based on the premise that Lo Ming-tsun met with accomplices at the 365 Tea House between 21:00 and 22:00 on November 7, 1997, to agree on accepting bribes. However, the "Taipei County Police Department Police Officers' Attendance and Firearm/Radio Check-Out Log," discovered after the judgment became final, shows that on that night Lo Ming-tsun was attending a meeting at the police precinct until 21:30, and subsequently checked out a firearm at 22:00 to execute an expanded raid task, making it utterly impossible for him to have met with accomplices at the 365 Tea House.

Although this new evidence, capable of proving Lo Ming-tsun's non-participation in the crime, is sufficient to initiate retrial proceedings, the court held that because the prosecutor had appealed out of time, the Lo Ming-tsun case had long since become final with an acquittal; under the law, there is no need to initiate retrial proceedings, and relief should instead be sought through an extraordinary appeal filed by the Prosecutor-General.

Today, our Foundation will assist Lo Ming-tsun in filing his 49th application for an extraordinary appeal. We expect the Prosecutor-General to stop passing the buck, take up the responsibility of removing this stumbling block of the prosecutor's out-of-time appeal, file an extraordinary appeal for Lo Ming-tsun, and enable the Supreme Court to revoke the conviction and vindicate his grievances of many years!

Attendees

• Ms. Lo, Daughter of Miscarriage of Justice Defendant in the Lo Ming-tsun Case
• Standing Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation / Attorney Lin Chun-hung
• Executive Director, Taiwan Innocence Project / Attorney Lo Shih-hsiang
• Deputy Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation / Attorney Chen Yu-fan

Press Contact
Standing Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation / Attorney Lin Chun-hung