Compilation of Rulings on Applications for Court Audio Recording Discs

To clarify the facts of the case and understand the status of court sessions

※ Same party as in the case listed below where the application was granted (Taiwan Shihlin District Court 109 (2020) Shen-Tzu No. 493 Criminal Ruling)

1. A, B
   The applicant failed to specifically explain how the court session circumstances relate to the clarification of the case facts, and further failed to state what legal interests they intend to assert or protect.

For the purpose of preserving evidence

Supplement: Due to the improper deprivation of personal freedom during the writ of habeas corpus proceedings, procedural justice as advocated by Article X of the Constitution was violated, and it can serve as evidence for future applications for state compensation.

1. A, B
   　Even when an applicant applies to the court for audio recording discs in accordance with regulations, the court must still review the relevance of the application for audio recording discs based on the specific case, considering the reasons stated by the applicant for "asserting or protecting their legal interests," and render a ruling on whether to grant permission.
   　In the "Motion for Minutes and Disc," the applicant merely stated "for the purpose of preserving evidence" and failed to specifically substantiate the reasons for any legal interests related to the case that were being asserted or protected.
   　Although this court issued a ruling ordering the applicant to make a supplement, the reasons provided in the applicant's supplemental statement were unsubstantiated.
   　The applicant has repeatedly filed applications for court audio recording discs on multiple occasions, but all were dismissed after the court ordered a supplement because the applicant failed to substantiate the reasons for "asserting or protecting their legal interests." This demonstrates that the applicant has exhibited a pattern of applying for court audio recording discs with vague reasons. To prevent the abuse of court audio recording data, the applicant should be required to specifically substantiate reasons meeting the aforesaid legal provisions.

Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court 109 (2020) Kang-Tzu No. 148 Criminal Ruling

Appeal Dismissed

Arguments on Appeal: Suspecting that the audio recording in this case was intentionally edited, but the appellant failed to present any circumstances where the written minutes did not match the audio recording contents. Failed to present specific application reasons for inspecting the court audio recording disc of that interrogation date (specifically which parts were omitted or untrue), nor pointed out any irregularities in the litigation proceedings of that date, merely criticizing the original ruling as improper with vague rhetoric and even personal speculation and suspicion.

Guardianship Pronouncement Proceeding

The court session minutes were not detailed or verbatim, with instances of erroneous or omitted records, affecting the judge's determination of the guardianship situation.

1. A, B
2. Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Family Proceedings Act
   The principle of closed courtrooms allows audience members only under exceptional circumstances explicitly stipulated by law, as permitted by the presiding judge or judge, and audio/video recording by individuals is prohibited to ensure confidentiality of court proceedings. The contents of court audio recordings involve numerous personal "privacies" among parties that they do not wish to be known. If court audio recording discs are directly delivered and thereby made public, negative consequences are bound to arise.
3. However, the applicant not only personally appeared in court on that date but also retained a lawyer who was present throughout the entire day. Following the interrogation, both the applicant and their agent personally signed the interrogation minutes to confirm them. If there were truly records that clearly mismatched the statements of the applicant or their agent, instead of raising objections on the spot regarding errors or omissions in the minutes, they chose to request the delivery of audio recording discs afterward, which cannot be deemed necessary for asserting or protecting their legal interests.

Divorce Case

Application for dossier inspection + Application for disc delivery

1. A
2. B
   Being a regulatory ordinance, it must not contravene the law (Family Proceedings Act).
3. Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Family Proceedings Act
   　Family proceedings constitute one of the specialized civil case types, involving intimate matters between parties that they do not wish to be known. To protect the privacy and reputation of family members, uncover the truth, and respect the family system for harmonious handling, the Family Proceedings Act explicitly stipulates that proceedings shall be conducted with closure as the principle. To implement the legislative intent of this provision, audio recording discs of court proceedings shall naturally not be delivered.
   　This court inquired with persons present at the case for their opinions, and the opposing party in the proceeding expressed disagreement. Considering that the parties' right to privacy should be given reasonable protection and respecting the family system, the application shall not be granted.

Taiwan Taichung District Court 109 (2020) Chia-Shen-Kang-Tzu No. 13 Civil Ruling

Appeal Dismissed

Appellant's Arguments: The text in the court's verification minutes merely reproduces the content submitted through the opposing party's filtering and fails to faithfully and completely present the contents of the subject matter of verification, which significantly impacts the appellant's right to litigation defense. Based on the protection of the right to be heard, verifying the correct disc contents to correct the minutes, and filing a separate tort action in another case, it is necessary to apply for the court disc. The opposing parties in court disputes are mostly in conflict of interest. When only one party has doubts about the unfavorable portions recorded in the trial minutes, or unilaterally wishes to confirm the recorded contents to facilitate the formulation of future attack and defense strategies, the court dismisses the application simply because the total written consent of the opposing party or other persons present at the court session cannot be obtained. This does not conform to legal provisions (proviso of Article 9 of the Family Proceedings Act) and imposes unnecessary restrictions and excessive disadvantageous burdens on the people's exercise and protection of their proper rights of litigation.

Grounds for Dismissal: The purpose of court audio recording is merely to assist in the preparation of minutes, not to replace them. The appellant's reasons for applying to obtain the court audio recording disc exceed the purpose of delivering court audio recording discs and amount merely to unilateral speculation by the appellant. The appellant failed to present evidence to substantiate their claims, and the court cannot deem them true based solely on the appellant's empty rhetoric.

Action to Establish Existence of Inheritance Right

To review the statements of the parties and testimony of witnesses in preparation for the next court debate

1. A
2. first half of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Family Proceedings Act
   The handling procedures of family proceedings shall be conducted in closed courtrooms.
3. B
   Persons present in the courtroom shall not make audio or video recordings by themselves without the permission of the presiding judge; for those who make audio or video recordings without permission, the presiding judge may order them to erase the audio or video recording contents. When granting the permission referred to in the preceding paragraph, the presiding judge shall consider the purpose of the audio or video recording and its impact on the progression of court proceedings, and may consult the opinions of other persons present in the courtroom; however, where the trial or interrogation is legally closed to the public or under other inappropriate circumstances, permission shall not be granted.
   
   In accordance with the principle of closed courtrooms, to protect the privacy, reputation, and family ethics of family members, and to prevent parties from leaking court proceedings through the delivery of court audio recording discs, it remains inappropriate to deliver court audio recording discs in this case. In addition, to balance the applicant's need to verify the statements made on the spot by parties and witnesses in preparation for litigation attacks and defenses, it is hereby ruled that in this action to establish the existence of inheritance right, the court clerk may be arranged to periodically accompany the applicant to listen to the court audio recording disc, provided that the applicant shall not make separate audio recordings and may only take separate written notes of the contents of the audio recording disc.

Guardianship Pronouncement Proceeding

To understand the contents of all court sessions in the divorce action

1. A
   When a party or a person lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier applies to the court for the delivery of court audio or video recording contents, they shall state the reasons for asserting or protecting their legal interests; otherwise, their application cannot be deemed lawful, and the court may deny permission.
2. B
   Being a regulatory ordinance, it must not contravene the law. If the law contains other provisions regarding trials or interrogations closed to the public for the purpose of protecting the privacy rights of the parties or interested persons involved, to implement the legislative intent of such provisions, cases classified by law as trials or interrogations closed to the public shall naturally not be delivered with court audio recording discs.
3. Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Family Proceedings Act
   　The Family Proceedings Act explicitly stipulates that handling procedures shall be conducted with closure as the principle. To implement the legislative intent of protecting the privacy of parties and interested persons as mandated by the law, court audio recording discs shall naturally not be delivered.
   　This proceeding is a Class D family proceeding stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph 4 of the Family Proceedings Act, which belongs to cases tried in closed proceedings, and the applicant failed to state reasons for asserting or protecting their legal interests. The applicant's application is without merit.

1. A, B
2. Failed to state reasons for asserting or protecting legal interests.
3. Forepart of Article 2 of the Regulations Governing the Audio and Video Recording of Court Proceedings and Their Utilization and Preservation, Article 219 of the Code of Civil Procedure
   
   The purpose of court audio recording is merely to assist in the preparation of minutes, thereby enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of minute preparation, and its use is not to replace minutes. The applicant has already retained a sub-agent to actually participate in the oral argument proceedings of this court session and is thoroughly familiar with the court session process. Thus, there is no necessity to apply for the review of the audio recording disc. Furthermore, if the applicant disputes that the contents recorded in the oral argument minutes deviate from the actual conduct of court activities, they should specifically point out the discrepancies in the court-prepared minutes and apply to the court to cross-reference the court audio recording, through which the minutes can be corrected or supplemented for remedy.

Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court 109 (2020) Kang-Tzu No. 72 Civil Ruling

Appeal Dismissed

Appellant's Arguments: A third party's statement was not fully recorded in the minutes, thus requiring confirmation of the complete contents. Grounds for dismissal: That third party did not even appear on that day, and furthermore, they are not a party to this case. Their statements have no procedural validity, and therefore there is no necessity for interest protection.

1. A, B
   To balance the openness of the court and the protection of personal information, the court must still review whether the application possesses legal interests before deciding whether to grant permission. The so-called "legal interests" refer to checking and correcting minutes, necessity for other litigation, or intending to protect legal interests upon perceiving that the court's method of directing litigation may affect litigation rights.
2. The defenses made by the counterparty are limited to those recorded in their written briefs or the oral argument minutes of this court. Where the minutes omit attack and defense methods presented by the counterparty, the counterparty naturally has the necessity to apply for the correction of minutes or the delivery of court audio recording discs. Unless such attack and defense methods are favorable to the applicant or unfavorable to the counterparty, the applicant has no necessity to apply for this court to supplement the recording of such attack and defense methods, and thus cannot apply for the delivery of court audio recording discs on this ground. The applicant merely stated that the minutes omitted the counterparty's defense but failed to explain how the omitted defense contents were favorable to the applicant or unfavorable to the counterparty. It is therefore difficult to recognize any necessity for the applicant to assert or protect their legal interests.

Taiwan High Court 108 (2019) Kang-Tzu No. 1591 Civil Ruling

Permission Granted

It concerns the right of litigation parties to access information, which indeed constitutes the assertion and protection of legal interests, and does not involve state secrets or other matters that should be kept confidential pursuant to laws and regulations, nor does it involve the privacy or business secrets of parties or third parties.

1. A, B
   The applicant failed to state the reasons or purposes for applying for the audio recording disc, or any specific circumstances where it is necessary for asserting or protecting their legal interests. Failing to state reasons for asserting or protecting legal interests renders the application for the delivery of the court audio recording disc unlawful, and it should be dismissed.

Taiwan Kaohsiung District Court 108 (2019) Shen-Tzu No. 158 Civil Ruling

Permission Granted

Being a person lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier, the application was filed within the statutory period, and it was explicitly stated that the application for the delivery of the court audio recording disc was based on reasons of protecting their legal interests.

1. A
2. B, Mutatis mutandis application of Article 242, Paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
   Except where documents in the dossier involve the privacy or business secrets of a party or a third party, and granting permission to inspect, transcribe, or photograph creates a risk of causing them major damage, or other matters where the law or regulations permit non-permission or restriction of applications to inspect, transcribe, or photograph documents in the dossier, or involving state secrets or other matters that should be kept confidential pursuant to laws and regulations, parties and persons lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier may lawfully apply to obtain discs for the purpose of asserting or protecting their legal interests. Asserting or protecting legal interests: Checking and correcting minutes, necessity for other litigation, or intending to protect legal interests upon perceiving that the court's method of directing litigation may affect litigation rights, etc.
3. Supreme Court 105 (2016) Tai-Chien-Kang-Tzu No. 84 Ruling
   While Article 9 of the Family Proceedings Act stipulates that the handling procedures of family proceedings shall be conducted in closed courtrooms, this merely regulates the public trial of courtrooms. Based on the protection of a party's right to be heard, the evidentiary basis data of a judgment shall in principle be open to the parties, and a party's right to inspect litigation data shall not be affected by family proceedings being tried in closed courtrooms.
4. The party is a person lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier and has stated reasons for applying to obtain court audio recordings to protect their legal interests.

1. A
2. B, Mutatis mutandis application of Article 242, Paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
   Except where documents in the dossier involve the privacy or business secrets of a party or a third party, and granting permission to inspect, transcribe, or photograph creates a risk of causing them major damage, or other matters where the law or regulations permit non-permission or restriction of applications to inspect, transcribe, or photograph documents in the dossier, or involving state secrets or other matters that should be kept confidential pursuant to laws and regulations, parties and persons lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier may lawfully apply to obtain discs for the purpose of asserting or protecting their legal interests. Asserting or protecting legal interests: Checking and correcting minutes, necessity for other litigation, or intending to protect legal interests upon perceiving that the court's method of directing litigation may affect litigation rights, etc.
3. Supreme Court 105 (2016) Tai-Chien-Kang-Tzu No. 84 Ruling
   While Article 9 of the Family Proceedings Act stipulates that the handling procedures of family proceedings shall be conducted in closed courtrooms, this merely regulates the public trial of courtrooms. Based on the protection of a party's right to be heard, the evidentiary basis data of a judgment shall in principle be open to the parties, and a party's right to inspect litigation data shall not be affected by family proceedings being tried in closed courtrooms.
4. The party is a person lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier and has stated reasons for applying to obtain court audio recordings to protect their legal interests.

1. A
2. Second half of Article 44-1, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
   Since there is no explicit prohibition on applying for court audio recording discs, it should be interpreted liberally to protect the right to obtain information within the dossier.

Laws A and B

The applicant is a person lawfully entitled to apply to inspect the dossier and has stated reasons for applying to obtain court audio recordings to protect their legal interests.