離開
進入《TAIPEI TIMES》Lawmakers urged to review court bill
Representatives from the Judicial Reform Foundation hold placards at a news conference in Taipei yesterday. Photo: CNA
MAJOR FLAWS:Televising court proceedings could expose personal data, which could cause disproportionate harm to the privacy and rights of witnesses, the groups said
By Shelley Shan / Staff reporter
The Judicial Reform Foundation and 16 civic groups yesterday urged the legislature to carefully assess a bill proposed by the Taiwan People’s Party （TPP） that would require all legal proceedings to be televised.
The call for a more prudent review came after a dozen legal professional associations voiced objections to the proposed amendments to the Court Organizations Act （法院組織法）, which have proceeded to a second reading.
“Judging from the perspective of protecting people’s rights to file lawsuits and receive fair trials, we think the bill has major flaws in terms of procedures and content,” the groups said.
While televising court proceedings might enhance the openness and transparency of the judicial process, institutionalizing such a practice must predicate on the condition that stakeholders in each case can receive fair trials, they said.
Because the bill could have a profound and extensive impact on various types of lawsuits, lawmakers should have thorough deliberations before passing it, they said.
The bill was pushed through hastily and lacked thorough consideration expected of sound legislation, they said, suggesting that the legislature suspend its review of the bill.
The groups support court proceedings being televised, but with five conditions.
First, the practice should be limited to open trials of civil and administrative lawsuits involving the “major public interest,” and judges should decide whether court proceedings can be televised, they said.
Second, to protect the privacy of witnesses, expert witnesses and stakeholders, only parts of the oral argument should be televised, and it must not include investigation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses, they said.
Third, judges should decide how the public broadcast of the court proceedings should be arranged to minimize its interference, they said.
Fourth, the Judicial Yuan should have a trial first. During the trial period, stakeholders must consent to such a practice as a way to protect their privacy, except cases where stakeholders are government agencies.
Fifth, the Judicial Yuan should commission an empirical study of how court proceedings are affected by public broadcasts and make adjustments to the practice accordingly.
The groups cited examples of cases involving significant public interest in which public broadcasting could be permitted, such as Radio Corp of America’s soil and groundwater contamination case, the “Hsichih Trio” case that involved three former death row inmates in a long-running murder case and the use of guns by indigenous groups.
The Taiwan Law Foundation in a statement said that judicial transparency is not synonymous with live broadcasts of lawsuits.
The current system has already fulfilled the requirement for openness and transparency by allowing people to sit through trials, access transcripts and read official verdicts online.
By contrast, televising court proceedings would disseminate information through images and sounds, and expose personal data to the public, which could cause disproportionate harm to the privacy and rights of witnesses, expert witnesses and other people, the foundation said.
Witnesses and expert witnesses might not want to testify in major criminal cases or highly publicized ones, or might be compelled to give false testimony, as pressure on them would surely increase when they must speak to the cameras as well, it said.
The foundation also expressed concern that courtroom scenes could be edited by artificial intelligence or turned into memes.
The Prosecutors Association said the proposed bill fails to provide a clear definition of “live broadcast of court proceedings.”
It neither indicates if the term also includes expanded court access via broadcasts, nor indicates if it means real-time broadcasts or time-delayed broadcasts, it said.
TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang （黃國昌） yesterday defended the party’s bill, saying it was one of the consensuses reached after the National Conference of Judicial Reform in 2017.
“Then-president Tsai Ing-wen （蔡英文） said the Democratic Progressive Party government would promote televising court proceedings to ensure that the judicial process is transparent. These groups were also at the conference at the time. Did they not agree to this suggestion as well?” Huang said on the sidelines of an event in New Taipei City.
新聞來源：TAIPEI TIMES
