Statement | A Series of Judicial Misconduct Incidents Raises Questions: Where is the Mechanism for Judicial Self-Reflection? JRF's Statement on Recent Violations of Official Duties by Certain Judges

In response to recent media reports regarding violations of official duties and abuse of power by Judge Chou Tai-te and Judge Peng Kang-fan of the Taipei High Administrative Court, Judge Li Chao-jung of the New Taipei District Court, and Chief Judge Chen Chang-jung of the Shilin District Court, our Foundation puts forward two main demands and issues the following statement:

1. The Judges Evaluation Commission should actively and proactively investigate the "behavioral patterns" behind judicial misconduct, rather than treating each case as an isolated incident and handling it leniently.
2. The Legislative Yuan should amend the Judges Act to strengthen the administrative supervisory responsibilities of the presidents of various courts and prosecutors offices over the judges and prosecutors under their jurisdiction.

1. Upholding Judicial Self-Discipline and Rebuilding Public Trust in the Judiciary

   On October 17, 2023, media reported that Chief Judge Chen Chang-jung of the Shilin District Court unlawfully refused to sign a judgment after a collegiate bench had already reached a decision, and instructed the clerk not to announce the main text of the judgment, resulting in the failure to legally announce the main text on the day of sentencing. The Chief Judge even threatened to discipline the clerk if the main text was announced.

   On November 7, 2023, media reported that during the adjudication of a case, the Supreme Administrative Court discovered that Judge Chou Tai-te of the first-instance Taipei High Administrative Court participated in the adjudication without having participated in oral arguments, violating Article 188 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which stipulates that "a judge who has not participated in the arguments serving as the basis for a judgment shall not participate in the judgment." Furthermore, associate judge Peng Kang-fan signed the record of oral arguments as the presiding judge, which was also a clear violation of the law.

   On November 14, 2023, the Department of Personnel of the Judicial Yuan announced the resolution of the Personnel Review Committee regarding Judge Li Chao-jung of the Civil Division of the New Taipei District Court. During the proceedings, Judge Li failed to explain to the parties the legal consequences arising from the consensual stay of litigation proceedings, and failed to remind the clerk to follow up on subsequent communications, resulting in the parties' case being deemed withdrawn—causing a severe infringement upon their right to litigation.

   In response to the recent series of acts violating judicial duties and abusing power by judges, our Foundation solemnly urges judicial authorities to take proactive actions to rebuild impaired public trust in the judiciary and safeguard the people's right to a fair trial.

2. Revisiting Judicial Evaluation and Implementing Investigations into "Behavioral Patterns"

   Existing provisions in the Judges Act address acts where judges violate official obligations, neglect official duties, or exhibit improper speech and conduct, serving as a basis for disciplining and supervising judges.

   However, the "Judges Evaluation Commission," which is responsible for individual case evaluations, lacks proactive effectiveness, failing to effectively supervise and weed out incompetent judges. In the three years since the implementation of the amended Judges Act, the aforementioned case of Judge Li Chao-jung is the first and only case initiated by a citizen request that has been established.

   In this case, the citizens "victimive" of Judge Li's misconduct had to refile their lawsuit and pay court fees all over again, expending labor and time to restart the litigation proceedings, with the additional risk of claims becoming time-barred. The risk and agony of rights infringement they suffered were immense. Although the Evaluation Commission concluded that Judge Li Chao-jung's violation of the Judicial Ethics Code was serious, it nevertheless concluded that there was "no necessity for disciplinary action" and referred the case to the Personnel Review Committee. Ultimately, the Personnel Review Committee merely issued a verbal warning. Practically speaking, it is difficult to make ordinary citizens who do not understand the law believe that the evaluation mechanism has genuinely functioned to help them monitor judicial quality and thereby restore trust in the judiciary.

   Tracing the root cause, the spirit of the judicial evaluation system lies in observing the "behavioral pattern" and "overall personal profile" of the person under evaluation. In other words, when the Evaluation Commission discovers misconduct, is the judge's improper behavior merely an "isolated lapse in judgment," or has it formed a poor "case-handling pattern"? Based on our Foundation's extensive experience in handling public grievances, "victims" of incompetent judges are often more than one person. This is precisely why Article 35, Paragraph 6 of the Judges Act explicitly regulates the authority to investigate behavioral patterns.

   Judge Li Chao-jung was previously impeached by Control Commissioners for calling a judge in another division while on the bench to discuss a case and how it should be judged, which was deemed poor courtroom attitude, a violation of the principle of judicial independence, and a breach of the Judicial Ethics Code. Moreover, Judge Li stated during her presentation of opinions in the evaluation proceedings that she tends to direct litigation toward a consensual stay in certain medical dispute cases. Therefore, the Evaluation Commission should proactively take into account Judge Li Chao-jung's past violations of official duties, conduct an active investigation and contextual review of her "pattern of litigation direction," and observe her overall personal profile to determine the necessity of disciplinary action.

   Similarly, when judges of the Taipei High Administrative Court sign a judgment without participating in arguments, is it a "momentary lapse in judgment" or a "case-handling habit" born of "knowingly breaking the law"? This remains for the Evaluation Commission to exercise its investigative function and proactively clarify. Therefore, our Foundation urges the Judges Evaluation Commission to implement behavioral pattern investigations and unleash its proactive efficacy.

3. Strengthening the Supervisory Responsibilities of Judicial Leaders: The Judges Act Must Be Amended Promptly

   Aside from the individual judge evaluation system serving as an important mechanism for supervising and weeding out incompetent judges, our Foundation believes that court presidents often stand at the very front line of understanding trial proceedings, and the cost of intervention and improvement initiated promptly by leaders is the lowest while yielding the most rapid results.

   Therefore, regarding the strengthening of leaders' administrative supervisory responsibilities over their subordinate judges, our Foundation believes the Judicial Yuan should take more proactive and concrete actions to improve the organizational culture lacking judicial accountability through swift internal self-reflection, thereby enhancing public trust in the judiciary.

   Following the major Shih Mu-chin disciplinary scandal that erupted in 2020, our Foundation proposed an amendment bill to the Judges Act, stipulating that individuals serving as court presidents and chief prosecutors must meet standards that make them worthy exemplars for all judges and prosecutors; it also added provisions allowing the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice to replace court presidents and chief prosecutors when they are found "unfit." Furthermore, alongside strengthening supervision over judicial leaders, our Foundation advocates that exemplary judicial leaders should shoulder the responsibility of supervising improper conduct by subordinate judges and prosecutors—for instance, explicitly incorporating "behavior violating the Judicial Ethics Code" into the scope of official supervision.

   In addition, the exercise of official supervision should not wait until a supervised judge gets into trouble or is reported for judicial leaders or presidents of courts at all levels to intervene post hoc; rather, they should proactively detect whether judges under their jurisdiction exhibit unfit circumstances. If so, without endangering or undermining the principle of judicial independence, they should proactively conduct supervision.

   Our Foundation reiterates that the recent series of acts violating judicial duties and abusing power by judges are not isolated, exceptional occurrences, but existing problems within the judicial system. The solution is not merely condemning individual judges, but fundamentally reflecting upon the judicial system, reforming official supervision regulations, strengthening the official supervisory responsibilities of judicial leaders, and implementing judicial accountability.