Speed Up Trial Proceedings, Hold Violent Police Officers Accountable, and Uncover the Truth Behind the Command Chain: Pre-Trial Press Conference for Former Taipei City Police Department Chief Huang Sheng-yung Accused by Legislator Chou Ni-an

Today (March 7) marks the pre-trial hearing for the attempted murder case filed by former Legislator Chou Ni-an against former Taipei City Police Department Chief Huang Sheng-yung. Three and a half years have passed, and despite presiding over by two judges, the case is still stuck in the preparatory proceedings and is only now entering substantive trial proceedings. Although the current judge has shown a proactive attitude and is assisting the private prosecutors in requesting relevant evidence from administrative agencies, the private prosecutors remain in a passive position if the administrative agencies refuse to cooperate. We call upon administrative agencies to have the courage to face their mistakes, provide relevant evidence, and allow the court to hold the police officers who committed acts of violence on that day accountable while restoring the truth behind the command operations.

On March 24, 2014, due to the Anti-Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement Movement, crowds occupied the Executive Yuan, triggering a large-scale violent police eviction, after which multiple individuals filed private prosecutions. Among the 42 people who initially applied to join the litigation, 8 have successively withdrawn due to the prolonged proceedings, and the Supreme Court also held that parties in court only hold the status of victims, making it full of uncertainty for the majority of parties whether this case can successfully hold Huang Sheng-yung accountable. The withdrawal of multiple lawsuits was not because they had forgiven and decided to abandon prosecution, but rather due to a sense of disappointment in the state government and an unwillingness to further expend time and energy on the litigation process. Most of the aforementioned 42 private prosecutors underwent hospital injury examinations with obvious injuries and comprehensive evidence. One of them is former Legislator Chou Ni-an, who suffered violent police attacks and beatings resulting in orbital bone fractures, rib fractures, thigh contusions, and a concussion, which was verified and reported by the media and garnered widespread national attention.

The parties who were present and subjected to violent eviction on that day sought to find the police officers who inflicted violence upon them through judicial litigation, uncover the truth of the incident, and obtain due relief, based on their trust in the judiciary. However, due to the non-cooperation of administrative agencies coupled with the passivity of some judges, numerous private prosecution cases have seen no substantive progress. We hope that the court can value the rights that parties are due, rather than wearing down the will of the parties and the pro bono legal team through delaying tactics over months and years, leaving them exhausted, disappointed with the court, and resentful of the government. Is a withdrawal of a lawsuit achieved through the loss of public trust truly the outcome the court wishes to achieve?

State law enforcement should comply with the principle of proportionality. Facing peaceful and non-violent assembly crowds, the police actually resorted to violent treatments such as using riot shields to stomp on feet and police batons to strike heads. It should be known that these citizens beaten and injured were merely sitting or lying on the ground, unarmed, and did not engage in further active resistance. Under such circumstances, how on earth did this meet the conditions for use under the Police-Use of Weapons Act? Yet, citizens waiting quietly to be carried away did not know that what awaited them was cruel and merciless violence.

Worse still, prior to executing the "eviction" operation, the police actually drove away the media beforehand, deployed the kettle-locking tactic to corral assembly participants, and then had riot police without identification badges launch attacks one by one. Is this really the proper approach when facing an assembly crowd? Was this not a planned violent suppression? Yet the identities of the perpetrators remain difficult to uncover. Even when the legal team had exhausted all evidentiary capabilities by providing on-site command deployment maps and even identifying a specific police officer who should have carried out the attack, the court still dismissed the case on the grounds that the parties could not identify the individual, or ruled it as a dismissal without entering substantive review by categorizing it as another identical case. Is this also a kettle-locking tactic employed by the court to drive away parties one by one until the matter fizzles out with nothing accomplished?

From another perspective, what is more closely related to the general public is the protection of the complete right to access justice. Having clearly suffered state violence and initiated lawful prosecution, victims are left wandering helplessly between courts due to the state's prior inaction and subsequent non-cooperation, with no truth and no compensation. Such a half-hearted protection of the right to access justice is the current reality of this case. We hereby call upon the judges to actively conduct trials and the administrative agencies to face the situation bravely, so that the truth may be restored and those who bear responsibility must face judgment.

Attendees

Pro Bono Legal Team for the Anti-Black Box Service Trade Agreement
and Parties to the Case, Chou Ni-an et al.