Official Letter to the Judge Evaluation Committee: One Year Since the New System under the Judges Act Took Effect-An Annual Work Report Should Be Published!

Recipient: Judge Evaluation Committee
Date of Issuance: June 17, 2021
Document Number: Szu-Kai-Tzu No. 110034
Priority: Ordinary
Security Classification and Declassification Conditions or Confidentiality Period: Ordinary
Attachments: See Attachment 1, Attachment 2, Attachment 3.

Subject: As July 17 of this year marks one year since the new system under the Judges Act took effect, we respectfully request that your Committee publish an annual implementation report and advise us of the status of its handling. Please see the explanation below and take appropriate action.

1. Article 35 of the Judges Act was amended and passed on third reading by the Legislative Yuan on July 17, 2019 (the "New Law"), allowing citizens to petition your Committee directly for individual judge evaluations without first going through a bar association or public-interest civil society organization. This is stated at the outset.


2. Moreover, as the Judicial Yuan's Department of Judicial Administration stated in its July 17, 2020 press release, "Strengthening the Supervisory and Removal Mechanism to Protect Citizens' Litigation Rights-The New System under the Judges Act Takes Effect on July 17": "The purpose of implementing the new system under the Judges Act is to establish a supervisory and removal mechanism for judges through diverse external participation, comprehensive procedural safeguards, expedited disciplinary proceedings, and sanctions whose effects are immediately felt, thereby effectively holding accountable the small number of unfit judges who undermine judicial impartiality. Only then can the efforts of the overwhelming majority of diligent, upright, and conscientious judges earn society's trust and support." To achieve that purpose, your Committee should publish an annual work report on its handling of citizens' petitions for individual judge evaluations under the new system, so that the public can understand how the system is being implemented, citizens' rights can be protected, and confidence in the judiciary can be strengthened.


3. With reference to your Committee's website (reference, applicable hereinafter), information such as individual case evaluation results, resolution documents, and general statistics on case handling and results has already been published. However, compared with the annual work reports published by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) in the United Kingdom, the information published by your Committee remains insufficient, making it difficult for the general public to fully understand the actual operation of the individual case evaluation system for judges through such information. Accordingly, with reference to the annual report published by the JCIO, this Foundation suggests that your Committee make reference thereto when drafting your annual report.
    
4. The JCIO directly receives complaints from the public concerning judges and determines whether those complaints are well-founded. After receiving a complaint, the JCIO assigns staff to conduct a preliminary investigation; where misconduct is found, the matter may be referred to the heads of the judiciary-the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice-for disciplinary action or further investigation. Its functions are therefore similar to those of your Committee, making its annual reports a useful reference. Based on the JCIO annual reports, we respectfully suggest that your Committee's annual report include at least the following:

   1. Establish and publish performance indicators for case-processing efficiency

      1. According to the successive annual reports published by the JCIO, three "Key Performance Indicators" are published to objectively demonstrate its progress and efficiency in handling complaint cases:

         Reporting Year	Page	Reference
         2019-2020	Page 8	Attachment 1
         2018-2019	Page 6	Attachment 2
         2017-2018	Page 6	Attachment 3

      2. The JCIO annual reports identify three key performance indicators: responding within two weeks to matters outside the JCIO's remit, providing complaint outcomes within 20 weeks, and giving parties monthly updates on case progress. These indicators provide an initial objective measure of case-processing efficiency. According to the 2019-2020 annual report, performance improved substantially over previous years, with achievement rates of 90%, 85%, and 100%, respectively.
          
      3. The information published on your Committee's website does not include comparable data. We respectfully suggest that your Committee establish such indicators and publish statistical analyses based on them.

   2. Compile, analyze, and publish statistics on the types of individual judge evaluations petitioned for by citizens

      1. According to the successive annual reports published by the JCIO, it always publishes the grounds or types of misconduct targeted by the evidence upon which cases are received and petitioned, including: matters involving judicial decisions and case handling, inappropriate speech and conduct, case delays, conflicts of interest, and abuse of judicial office status, so that the general public can quickly understand how it handles complaint cases:

         Reporting Year	Page	Reference
         2019-2020	Page 9	Attachment 1
         2018-2019	Pages 10, 14	Attachment 2
         2017-2018	Pages 7, 11	Attachment 3

      2. The information published on your Committee's website contains no statistical analysis of the foregoing data. To enable judicial authorities and the public to understand the types of individual judge evaluations sought by citizens-and thereby better identify possible patterns in current adjudication and issues of concern to court users-we respectfully suggest that your Committee compile, analyze, and publish the grounds cited in citizens' evaluation petitions, regardless of the disposition of the case.

   3. Compile, analyze, and publish statistics on cases in which your Committee conducts necessary investigations

      1. Under Article 41-1 of the Judges Act, your Committee may conduct necessary investigations upon the application of the evaluated judge or petitioner, or on its own initiative. Regardless of whether a citizen's petition is ultimately found well-founded, investigations conducted by your Committee can help clarify the facts alleged in the petition, the circumstances of the case, and the applicable standards.
          
      2. The information published on your Committee's website contains no statistical analysis of such investigations. To enable the public and petitioners to understand when your Committee exercises its investigative authority, and to allow judges to foresee more concretely the boundaries of permissible conduct and the circumstances in which an investigation may be initiated, we respectfully suggest that your Committee compile, analyze, and publish the grounds, standards, methods, and scope of investigations.

   4. Compile, analyze, and publish statistics on cases resulting in "petition unfounded," "no evaluation initiated," or "dismissed without review"

      1. According to the successive annual reports published by the JCIO, detailed breakdowns of its case-handling circumstances are published, listing statistical data according to the applied regulations for cases where investigations are not pursued or are rejected:

         Reporting Year	Page	Reference
         2019-2020	Page 10	Attachment 1
         2018-2019	Page 11	Attachment 2
         2017-2018	Page 8	Attachment 3

      2. The statistical information published on your Committee's website addresses only "resolution results." Since the new system took effect, only one case has been found to involve a "well-founded petition," accounting for just 0.7% of all cases (latest query date: June 15, 2021), far below the 48.5% rate under the old system. Conversely, more than 99% of citizen-petitioned cases result in "petition unfounded," "no evaluation initiated," or "dismissed without review." Your Committee should therefore publish further data compiling and analyzing the grounds for each type of disposition, so that the public can understand why these outcomes occur.
      3. Accordingly, for cases resulting in "petition unfounded," "no evaluation initiated," or "dismissed without review," we respectfully suggest that your Committee compile, analyze, and publish statistics according to Paragraph 4 of Article 35, Article 37, and Article 38 of the Judges Act. Because citizens unfamiliar with the law may fail to initiate an evaluation successfully, it is also important to understand whether representation by counsel affects case outcomes. We therefore suggest publishing statistics on both case outcomes and whether counsel was retained.

   5. Compile, analyze, and publish statistics on "well-founded petition" cases and final disciplinary outcomes

      1. According to the successive annual reports published by the JCIO, it always publishes the final disposition results of the current year's complaint cases made by its judicial authority heads:

         Reporting Year	Page	Reference
         2019-2020	Page 11	Attachment 1
         2018-2019	Page 12	Attachment 2
         2017-2018	Page 9	Attachment 3

      2. The statistical information published on your Committee's website reports only the Committee's dispositions. It does not compile or analyze (1) the types of judicial misconduct found in "well-founded petition" cases under Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Judges Act, or (2) the Disciplinary Court's final adjudicative outcomes. It is therefore impossible to compare the types of discipline recommended by your Committee with those ultimately imposed by the Disciplinary Court. As a result, the public cannot readily understand what misconduct led to discipline or what sanctions were imposed, making it difficult to assess whether the recommended and imposed sanctions were appropriate.
          
      3. As the body that directly receives citizens' petitions for judge evaluations, your Committee carries the public's substantial expectations for impartial adjudication. We respectfully suggest that, for "well-founded petition" cases, your Committee also compile and analyze which subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of the Judges Act applies, and track and publish the Disciplinary Court's adjudicative outcomes, thereby helping strengthen public confidence in the judiciary.

   6. The purpose of publishing the foregoing statistical analyses is to allow the public to understand promptly and objectively the overall effectiveness of the individual judge-evaluation system, thereby improving the quality of adjudication and restoring confidence in the judiciary. The need for such aggregate information is not eliminated merely because your Committee already publishes individual resolutions.

5. In summary, we respectfully suggest that your Committee refer to the JCIO annual report and publish an annual report covering the first year of implementation of Taiwan's new individual judge-evaluation system under the Judges Act, and advise us of the status of its handling.
    

Original Recipient: Judge Evaluation Committee
Copies Sent To: Judicial Yuan, Democratic Progressive Party Caucus Office of the Legislative Yuan, Kuomintang Caucus Office of the Legislative Yuan, New Power Party Caucus Office of the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan People's Party Caucus Office of the Legislative Yuan