離開
進入《TAIPEI TIMES》 Jury advocates to challenge rejection
Jury trial system referendum initiator Chang Ching, right, and Taiwan Jury Association chairman Wu Ching-chin, left, hold a news conference in Taipei yesterday. Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times
SINGLE ISSUE? To justify its rejection of a referendum question on implementing a jury system, the CEC said it touched on multiple issues and had ambiguous wording
By Jason Pan / Staff reporter
The Taiwan Jury Association and judicial reform advocates yesterday vowed to launch a court challenge against the Central Election Commission （CEC） for turning down their proposed referendum on implementing a jury system for criminal trials.
To deny the public from having a say on this important issue, the commission cited improper reasons and nitpicked the wording of the proposed question, association convener Chang Ching （張靜） said.
The proposed question reads: “Regarding the judicial reform measure for public participation in criminal trials, do you agree to adopt US-style jury trials as the blueprint for the jury system, as the basis for implementing a new mechanism for future amendments to laws on criminal procedures?”
Chang, a former judge and prosecutor who has worked in the judiciary for more than 30 years, and legal reform advocates have been campaigning in support of a “true jury system” for criminal trials, rather than the “citizen judge” system favored by the Judicial Yuan.
At a news conference, Chang and association members rejected the commission’s justification and vowed to file a lawsuit challenging the decision with the Administrative Court, as well as invite the public to attend a hearing on the case.
After convening a hearing on the question last month, the commission decided to reject the proposal, saying that it did not conform to the “single issue only” provision under Article 9 of the Referendum Act （公投法） and contained “ambiguous wording.”
Chang said that he disagrees with the reasoning that implementing a jury system would necessitate changes in public prosecution, court hearings and other procedures, as well as harm defendants’ rights.
The jury system would only change one of many mechanisms in the nation’s legal system, he said.
“Its effect on other procedures and issues would be the same as those caused by the Judicial Yuan’s ‘citizen judge’ system, so we do not see how it contravenes the ‘single issue only’ provision,” Chang added.
The commission also said that its use of the words “implementing a new mechanism” （創制） and “blueprint” （藍本） were ambiguous.
“This is nitpicking, finding minor faults as grounds for rejection,” Chang said, adding that “blueprint” is taught in school textbooks, is a common term understood by most people and was also used in last year’s public hearings on the question.
“While the CEC said we should use the more specific legal term xu shou （繼受）, we were afraid that the public would not understand, so we used the more commonly understood word ‘blueprint,’” he said.
“Implementing a jury system is needed on the road to judicial reform. Referendum voting must not be used as a weapon by political parties, and therefore we shall file a legal challenge against the CEC’s decision,” the association said in a statement.
Attorney Jerry Cheng （鄭文龍） accused President Tsai Ing-wen （蔡英文） of pulling strings at the commission, saying: “Tsai has violated the Democratic Progressive Party’s founding spirit, as the party’s original charter contained an article advocating for a jury system.”
新聞來源：TAIPEI TIMES
