Court Observation Recruitment | Sanchong Police Assault Case (Second Instance, Second Preparatory Proceedings)

In September 2022, two police officers surnamed Weng and Chiang from the Yung-fu Police Station of the Sanchong Precinct, New Taipei City Police Department, during evening duty, mistook a citizen surnamed Huang for a wanted fugitive, arrested him, and unlawfully subdued him, causing severe injuries to Mr. Huang. This violated relevant provisions of the Police Powers Enforcement Act and the Criminal Code. Afterwards, instead of reflecting on their actions, they filed a counter-charge of assault against the victim, Mr. Huang.

On June 25 of last year, the New Taipei District Court delivered its judgment on the assault charge filed by police officers Weng and Chiang, finding Mr. Huang not guilty. The prosecutor appealed the decision, and the Taiwan High Court completed the first preparatory proceedings on January 8, 2025. Currently, Mr. Huang has decided to reach a settlement in court with the unlawful police officers; however, regarding the criminal proceedings, the case has entered the second instance stage and cannot be withdrawn, thus requiring continued adjudication. In this regard, the Judicial Reform Foundation still needs to deploy personnel to initiate court observation actions, and hopes to invite citizens concerned with police illegality and law enforcement violence to attend in person to give support and encouragement to Mr. Huang! After the session, time permitting, the defense counsel for this case or JRF colleagues will also briefly guide everyone through the facts of the case and discuss the legal controversies.

Court Observation Schedule

Case Facts

When police officers Weng and Chiang from the Sanchong Precinct questioned Mr. Huang, they failed to "wear uniforms" or "present relevant identification documents" to prove their identity as law enforcement officers in accordance with Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Police Powers Enforcement Act, nor did they provide Mr. Huang with an opportunity to refuse pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the same Article.
More seriously, as Mr. Huang walked out of his home, Officer Weng directly grabbed Mr. Huang's shoulder, hurled profanities, and proceeded to subdue, kick, and punch Mr. Huang, even spraying pepper spray into Mr. Huang's eyes while he was already pinned down. During the unlawful law enforcement process, Mr. Huang repeatedly cried out, "You have the wrong person," "My ID is in my pocket," and the like, but the officers completely ignored him and failed to verify his identity, continuing to attack Mr. Huang's face and body.

Later, other arriving police officers informed them that Mr. Huang was not the wanted fugitive the police were targeting this time, but Officer Weng still insisted on forcibly handcuffing the bruised and battered Mr. Huang by his hands and feet, dragging him back to the police station, and subsequently filing criminal assault charges against Mr. Huang.

First Instance Judgment

First, the court held that Officer Weng's acts of attacking and insulting Mr. Huang constituted the offense of assault under Article 277, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code and the offense of public insult under Article 309, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, since Officer Weng possessed the status of a public servant, pursuant to the former part of Article 134 of the Criminal Code regarding the "aggravated punishment for crimes committed by public servants," the court determined that Officer Weng intentionally committed the crimes of assault and public insult by taking advantage of the power and opportunity of his public office, thus warranting aggravated punishment. The court then adjudicated the matter under the most severe offense, "intentional assault committed by a public servant taking advantage of the power and opportunity of office," pursuant to the provisions on imaginary concurrence under Article 55 of the Criminal Code.

In addition, Officer Weng's act of arbitrarily handcuffing the bruised Mr. Huang and dragging him back to the police station also constituted the crime of coercion under Article 304 of the Criminal Code, adjudicated as the offense of "intentional coercion committed by a public servant taking advantage of the power and opportunity of office." Finally, considering that defendant Officer Weng denied the charges after the offense, failed to reach a mediation or obtain forgiveness from Mr. Huang, taking into account his attitude after the offense, the degree of harm caused by the crime, and the fact that Officer Weng had no prior criminal record resulting in imprisonment, the court comprehensively weighed these factors and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment for the assault charge; and ten days of detention for the coercion charge, which may be commuted to a fine.

As for the counter-charge of assault filed against Mr. Huang, the court found him not guilty.

References:

• Statement | Police Violence Without Remorse, Review the Performance Evaluation System Urgently—Press Conference on the Verdict of the Sanchong Police Assault Case
• Court Observation Recruitment | Sanchong Police Assault Case (Second Instance Preparatory Proceedings)
• Taiwan New Taipei District Court 112-Year Yi-Zi No. 1202 Criminal Judgment

Contact Person

Legal Specialist Ch'en Kuan-chen
Email: olivia@jrf.org.tw
Phone: 02-25231178#21