Appeal Acquittal in the March 24 Fourth-Anniversary National Police Agency Paint-Splattering Case - Volunteer Defense Team Statement

Today (2021/06/09), the defense team received the Taiwan High Court's second-instance judgment in the March 24 fourth-anniversary paint-splattering case. The dispositive portion reversed the first-instance judgment and acquitted all six defendants; the acquittals are final.

Based on the evidence in the record, the Taiwan High Court explained that splashing paint and writing in red on the National Police Agency's main gate, walls, and barricades did not cause those objects to lose their functions or render them unusable; the defendants therefore did not commit damage to property. The court further held that the paint and writing expressed opinions and criticism, based on the defendants' own value judgments, concerning responsibility for the March 23 incident. They were specific comments on a matter open to public criticism rather than abstract abuse or vilification. The defendants' expression through paint and red lettering therefore did not constitute the Criminal Code offense of insulting a public office.

The defense team expresses its respect for the High Court's clear analysis of the statutory elements and the evidence in the record, its correction of the lower court's view, and its willingness to protect fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom of speech by entering acquittals. At the same time, the investigation in this case involved serious rights violations-including arbitrary arrest, unlawful searches, restrictions on personal liberty, and false entries in official documents-that reflect remnants of authoritarian practices within the system and run counter to Taiwan's progress toward freedom and democracy. We therefore make the following appeals:

1. Do Not Use Criminal Prosecution to Intimidate People From Exercising Freedom of Speech and Assembly

This case began with the defendants taking action to demand accountability for the large-scale police violence inflicted on the public. Studies of the March 24 Executive Yuan eviction have identified, among the roots of unchecked police violence, a long-standing tendency to treat street protesters as adversaries and an authoritarian legacy of insufficient constraints on police power. During the trial, the court and defense counsel also uncovered unlawful arrests and investigative conduct by police. Against that backdrop, the fact that six defendants had to stand trial for political expression is particularly ironic. A democratic and pluralistic society should tolerate dissent, yet criminal prosecution is too often used to burden dissenters, suppress opposing views, and infringe freedom of speech. The defense team thanks the six defendants for courageously exercising their constitutional right to express their views. We will never know how many others have remained silent because of police abuse of power. We hope today's High Court judgment will encourage people in Taiwan to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom of speech with greater confidence.

2. The Offense of Insulting a Public Office Should Be Decriminalized

The Judicial Reform Foundation previously held the "Authoritarian Criminal Law and Transitional Justice: A Seminar on the Offenses of Instigation and Insulting a Public Office" on July 25, 2020. According to scholars who presented at the seminar, the offense of insulting a public office can be traced from the Great Qing Criminal Code to the present day. Taiwan has been a democracy for more than 30 years, and the legitimacy of retaining an offense with such authoritarian origins has long been questioned. Its existence and application may not only infringe freedom of speech used to monitor government, but also obstruct social dialogue and conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty. It should therefore be abolished as soon as possible.

When news reports show governments in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, and elsewhere using state power to arrest and prosecute social activists, it is striking that Taiwan-priding itself on democracy and freedom-still retains and applies this authoritarian-era offense and allows it to be used to suppress speech. This reveals both the obsolescence of parts of our legal system and the extent to which the culture within state institutions has yet to catch up with contemporary human-rights standards. The defense team calls on those in power, while invoking transitional justice, to examine carefully which rules within the state apparatus should be replaced. Abolishing the offense of insulting a public office would be a good place to start.

3. Police Enforcement Must Comply With Due Process

The first-instance judgment confirmed that all seized mobile-phone and camera data, as well as statements obtained from the defendants during police questioning and investigation, were inadmissible because they resulted from unlawful stops, searches, and seizures. The error-ridden evidence-gathering process, inaccurate investigation reports, and recent controversies arising from arbitrary and unlawful police stops all show the need for stronger legal training and oversight concerning the exercise of police powers-particularly the application of proportionality and the existence of lawful grounds for administrative action.

In sum, the High Court's clear reasoning, recognition of the six defendants' right to express their views, and judgments of acquittal are deeply welcome. But in a democracy, a system that forces people to bear years of litigation simply to express political views itself places an improper burden on freedom of speech. Through years of litigation and personal struggle, the defendants have reminded us that accountability for the state violence of March 24 remains unfinished, while also demonstrating firsthand how the state can use criminal prosecution to constrain expression. Like many courageous social movements in Taiwan's democratization, their willingness to confront the system and voice dissent has helped drive institutional and social change and build, step by step, the substance of democracy and freedom.

Reform remains unfinished. We continue to hope and work for a Taiwan in which people can express their views freely and the state fully tolerates and protects diverse voices.