Statement | Press Conference on Second-Instance Victory in the State Compensation Case over the March 24 Executive Yuan Violent Eviction
Last edited: 2026-08-30
The "March 24 Executive Yuan Violent Eviction" will mark its eighth anniversary this March. In October 2019, 25 people filed claims for state compensation against the Taipei City Government and the Taipei City Police Department (TCPD). The Taipei District Court dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims but ordered the TCPD to pay certain plaintiffs a total of more than NT$1.1 million. The TCPD, the Taipei City Government, and some of the plaintiffs appealed. After more than two years of proceedings, the Civil Division of the Taiwan High Court delivered its second-instance judgment today. The court dismissed the appeals by the City Government and the TCPD and upheld most of the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs. This is not only the minimum measure of justice; it is also a victory for the rule of law.
Nearly eight years after the incident, every frontline officer who used violence remains "Unidentifiable." No one has been held criminally or administratively accountable, while senior police officials have either retired with their careers intact or risen through the ranks. At this point, seeking compensation from the state has become the most modest demand on the path to accountability. What the plaintiffs have cared about has never been the amount of compensation, but whether the state can acknowledge its wrongdoing after an incident of large-scale state violence and whether Taiwan can establish the standards for policing assemblies and demonstrations that a state committed to human rights should uphold.
The plaintiffs in this state compensation litigation are only a small group of those who were subjected to large-scale state violence on the night of March 24, 2014. The legal team thanks these plaintiffs for continuing, nearly eight years after the incident, to devote their time to walking the final mile toward holding the state accountable on behalf of the many people who, disappointed in or fearful of state power or disillusioned with the prospect of judicial accountability, could not do so themselves.
The ability of the people to express their views through assemblies and demonstrate their collective will to the government is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Protecting Taiwan's environment of freedom and democracy was the original purpose for which the plaintiffs and the legal team brought this state compensation case. We sincerely hope that the outcome of this litigation will serve as a warning to state authorities so that, in the future, no one will again be injured simply for taking to the streets to protest.
Summary of Second-Instance Results
| Status | Name | First-Instance Result | Second-Instance Result | Amount Currently Awarded |
| No Appeal Filed | Chiu Yu-Nan | Dismissed | X | 0 |
| Appellee | Chou Li Yu-Mei, Chou Po-Yang, Chou Ping-Kuang, Chou Chia-Ling, Chou Chia-Ching | 108,980 | Dismissed | 108,980 |
| Appellant | Huang Tai-Lun | Dismissed | 60,000 | 60,000 |
| Appellant | Li Tsung-Lin | Dismissed | Dismissed | 0 |
| Appellant | Li Sheng-Chang | Dismissed | 60,000 | 60,000 |
| Appellant | Pan Kuan | Dismissed | Dismissed | 0 |
| Appellee | Li Meng-Jung | 101,050 | Dismissed | 101,050 |
| Appellee | Cheng Yun-Yang | 100,900 | Dismissed | 100,900 |
| Appellant | Yin Hsin-Yao | Dismissed | 61,000 | 61,000 |
| No Appeal Filed | Cheng Yuan-Chun | Dismissed | X | 0 |
| Appellee | Tao Han | 100,000 | Dismissed | 100,000 |
| Appellee | Chou Ni-An | 200,000 | Dismissed | 200,000 |
| No Appeal Filed | Liao Ko-Hua | Dismissed | X | 0 |
| Appellant | Chang Ping-Sheng | Dismissed | 12,000 | 12,000 |
| Appellee | Lin Chih-Chieh | 100,000 | Dismissed | 100,000 |
| Appellant | Lin Jui-Tzu | Dismissed | Dismissed | 0 |
| Appellant | Wang Chia-Ching | Dismissed | 60,000 | 60,000 |
| Appellant and Appellee | Chiang Cheng-Han | 100,000 | Increased by NT$23,000 | 123,000 |
| No Appeal Filed | Hung Ting-Yi | Dismissed | X | 0 |
| Appellant | Hsiao Yung-Yu | Dismissed | Dismissed | 0 |
| No Appeal Filed | Lan Chung-Yu | Dismissed | X | 0 |
| Appellee | Su Chun-Hsiung | 100,000 | Dismissed | 100,000 |
| Appellant | Chou Miao-Chen | Dismissed | Dismissed | 0 |
| Appellee | Huang Shih-Sen | 100,000 | Dismissed | 100,000 |
| Appellant and Appellee | Huang Kuei-Lan | 100,000 | Increased by NT$20,000 | 120,000 |
| Subject | Case Number | Result |
| State Compensation | ||
| TCPD, Taipei City Government | Taipei District Court 106-Chung-Kuo-Tzu No. 6; Taiwan High Court 109-Shang-Kuo-Tzu No. 16 |
First-instance judgment: Chou Ni-An and 13 others were awarded a total of NT$1.11 million in state compensation from the TCPD. The present ruling is the second-instance judgment. |
| Administrative Investigation | ||
| Unidentified officers who used violence | None (efforts were made through questions by city councilors and legislators, petitions to the Control Yuan, op-eds, web pages, and other public advocacy) | |
| Senior police officials | The TCPD imposed two reprimands on Hu Kuang-Hsing, commander of the Special Operations Squadron and the officer who led the unit, for failing to properly perform his supervisory duties. The identities of officers in the Special Operations Squadron and other units who used violence, however, have never been ascertained. | |
| Private Prosecution | ||
| Unidentified officers who used violence | Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 29; Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 107-Shang-Tzu No. 1204 | Private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible |
| Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 90; Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 104-Shang-Tzu No. 1160 | Private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 48; Taiwan High Court 105-Shang-Tzu No. 2474 | Private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| Commander Hsueh Wen-Jung | Taipei District Court 105-Tzu-Tzu No. 60 | Acquitted at first instance; judgment became final because the private prosecutor did not appeal |
| Taipei District Court 105-Tzu-Tzu No. 67 | Same matter; private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| Taipei District Court 107-Tzu-Tzu No. 15 | Same matter; private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| Commander Yang Hung-Cheng | Taipei District Court 105-Tzu-Tzu No. 62; Taiwan High Court 108-Shang-Tzu No. 3478 | Acquitted at both first and second instances |
| (Defendant was the commander on Peiping East Road) | Taipei District Court 105-Tzu-Tzu No. 58 | Private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible |
| Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 56; Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 104-Shang-I-Tzu No. 714 | Private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| Taipei City Police Department Commissioner Huang Sheng-Yung | Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 61; Taiwan High Court 108-Shang-Tzu No. 3009; Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 109-Tai-Shang No. 2784 | Acquittal became final after third-instance judgment |
| Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 33; Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 104-Shang-I-Tzu No. 1339 | Same matter; private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| (Defendants: Chiang Yi-Huah, Wang Cho-Chun, Fang Yang-Ning, and Huang Sheng-Yung) | Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 35; Taiwan High Court 104-Shang-Tzu No. 2630; Supreme Court 108-Tai-Shang No. 1728 | Same matter; private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible |
| (Defendants: Chiang Yi-Huah, Wang Cho-Chun, Fang Yang-Ning, and Huang Sheng-Yung) | Taipei District Court 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 35; Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 106-Shang-Tzu No. 122; Supreme Court Criminal Judgment 108-Tai-Shang No. 1728 | Same matter; private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible |
| Taipei District Court Criminal Judgment 103-Tzu-Tzu No. 94; Taiwan High Court Criminal Judgment 104-Shang-I-Tzu No. 161 | A person with limited legal capacity may not independently initiate a private prosecution; private prosecution dismissed as inadmissible | |
| President Ma Ying-Jeou, Premier Chiang Yi-Huah, National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-Chun, Commander Fang Yang-Ning |
Taipei District Court 108-Tzu-Keng-Er No. 5 | Acquitted at first instance; judgment final |
Attendees
Members of the Pro Bono Legal Team
Attorney Yu Po-Hsiang
Attorney Kuo Hao-Jen
Attorney Wu Yao-Ting
Attorney Chiao Cheng-Hsiang
Attorney Ni Ying-Hua
Plaintiffs
Li Meng-Jung
Huang Kuei-Lan
Chou Ni-An
Press Contact
Lee Ming-Ju, Staff Attorney, Judicial Reform Foundation
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.