Statement by the JRF Regarding Today's (11/29) Review of Lay Participation in Trials by the Judiciary and Organic Laws Committee of the Legislative Yuan

Photo/Symposium on Discovery in Lay Participation in Trials Systems hosted by the JRF

Regarding today's (11/29) review of bills related to the "Lay Participation in Trials System" by the Judiciary and Organic Laws Committee of the Legislative Yuan, since this system concerns major reforms in criminal litigation procedures and involves the success or failure of judicial reform, the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) hereby issues the following statement:

1. Urging legislators to fully discuss and rigorously review different systems such as lay-judge (ch'an-shen) or jury systems

   Regarding the lay participation in trials system, aside from the "official version" jointly proposed by the Judicial Yuan and the Executive Yuan, which is designed with reference to Japan's saiban'in (lay-judge) system, there are also jury system versions proposed by caucus groups or legislators, meaning that the systems adopted by each version differ. Today, the committee first reviewed the official version adopting the "lay-judge system." As for whether the jury system will be reviewed, and how a decision will be formed to adopt a certain system, both remain unclear, arousing external concerns. The foundation urges the committee to value the respective advantages and limitations of both the jury and lay-judge systems, to provide opportunities for full discussion of all version systems, to clearly present both the lay-judge and jury bills together, and to conduct a rigorous review.

2. The Judicial Yuan proceeded with the lay-judge system without adequate communication, proposing an official version with severe flaws

   There are divergent voices among the public in Taiwan regarding whether to adopt a lay-judge system or a jury system. Ignoring the outcome of the National White Paper Conference on Judicial Reform, where both the lay-judge system and jury system tied with 7 votes each, the Judicial Yuan unilaterally finalized the adoption of the lay-judge system. The entire policy-making process failed to adequately communicate with the public, and differing public opinions were excluded. Furthermore, the official version contains many highly controversial provisions. For instance, it adopts a complex and unnecessary three-stage discovery process to replace the defendant's and defense counsel's right to examine case files; the defendant has no right to choice; professional judges and lay judges deliberate together in secret during intermediate discussions; determinations of guilt and sentencing deliberations are conducted simultaneously; and non-legal professionals account for less than 20 percent of the members on the effectiveness evaluation committee—all of which have drawn severe doubt and criticism.

3. Granting trial opportunities to both systems to gather local empirical data and experience to find the system suitable for our country

   There are over 70 countries worldwide that adopt lay participation in trials, and countries implementing the jury system actually outnumber those with lay-judge systems; both systems have their respective advantages and limitations. Therefore, when introducing lay participation in trials, more localized empirical research is needed to introduce a system suitable for our country. The JRF advocates that our country should first simultaneously trial both the jury and lay-judge systems, and after a six-year evaluation, determine the system most suitable for our country.

Judicial reform is eagerly anticipated by the public, and the lay participation in trials system is the key to reversing the current lack of trust in the judiciary. We earnestly urge legislators to face this squarely and allow the public's voice to be reflected in the legislation so that judicial reform has a chance to succeed.