Have library access?
IP:18.97.9.169
  • Journals

2017年刑事程序法回顧:刑事救濟程序、證據法則與強制處分

Review the Development of Criminal Procedure Law in 2017: Criminal Relief Procedure, Evidential Rules, Coercive Measure

Abstracts


2017年總統府召開司改國是會議,後續法律改革預期將重大影響刑事程序法的全貌,其發展有待未來觀察,本文僅聚焦在評論刑事程序法的實務發展,特別是最高法院的重要決議和裁判。整體來說,刑事救濟程序是2017年實務發展成果最豐富的領域。司法院釋字第752號解釋基於訴訟權之保障,宣告刑事訴訟法第376條禁止二審初受有罪判決之人上訴第三審違憲,促成修法。最高法院承認被告對宣告監護處分之無罪判決得提起上訴、受特赦之人得聲請再審,值得肯定;在強制辯護案件否定第二審法院指定辯護人協助被告上訴的義務,以及課予再審聲請人對於新事證確實性過高的舉證責任及說明義務,則是有待檢討。除此之外,面對法律未明訂的新型科技偵查手段,最高法院秉持強制偵查法定原則及隱私權保障的精神,宣告GPS跟監違法,對調取網路傳真適用相對法官保留原則,令人喝采!

Parallel abstracts


In 2017, the office of the president convened the meeting of national judicial reform. We can expect and observe that the coming reforms will completely affect the criminal procedure law. This article focuses on commenting on the practical developments of criminal procedure law, especially the important decisions, judgments and verdicts of the Supreme Court. On the whole, criminal relief procedure is the most plentiful field of practical development in 2017. Based on guaranteeing the right of legal proceedings, J. Y. Interpretation No. 752 declared article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Law forbidding defenders only guilty in the second instance to appeal to the third instance was unconstitutional and promoted the amendment. We approve that the Supreme Court admitted defenders can appeal for the judgment declaring not guilty but announcing custody and protection and people amnestied can apply for the retrial. However, it should be criticized that the Supreme Court denied the obligation of assignment of counsel in the second instance to assist defender in appealing in compulsory counsel cases and obligated the application of retrial an excessive burden of proof or obligation to disclose about newly discovered evidence. In addition, we should applaud that when facing the newly technological detective measures not established in the law, the Supreme Court based on the principle of coercive measure according to law and protecting the right to privacy, declared the use of GPS for tracking is unconstitutional, and the obtainment of internet fax also applies to the principle of relative judge reservation.

References


薛智仁(2017).2016年刑事程序法回顧:沒收程序法、羈押閱卷與證據法則.臺大法學論叢.46(特刊),1498+1500-1501+1512-1519.
林裕順(2017).羈押閱卷的「美麗」與「哀愁」.月旦裁判時報.65,5-12.
李榮耕(2017).試評釋字第737號解釋及2017年新修正的刑事訴訟法.月旦裁判時報.65,13-23.
林輝煌.刑事程序與人權保障:刑事司法之國際觀點.法令月刊.68(12),56+58-60.
林鈺雄(2017).刑事訴訟法下冊.臺北:自刊.

Cited by


李榮耕(2022)。犯罪偵查中通訊內容的調取臺大法學論叢51(3),757-831。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.202209_51(3).0004
呂嘉穎(2022)。論總統的特赦權行使對釋字第803號解釋產生之後續影響台灣原住民族研究15(2),41-64。https://doi.org/10.29910/TJIS.202212_15(2).0002

Read-around