限制或剝奪被告對質詰問權之研究─以性犯罪被害者證人為中心

The study on restrict or deprivation of the right of confrontation- Focus on the victim-witnesses in sexual assault crime

張譽馨(Yu-Hsin Chang)

指導教授 ： 王皇玉

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201602938

摘要

刑事被告與證人對質詰問的權利，可謂是具有普世價值的基本人權，也是作為公平審判程序所不可或缺的要素。原則上法院應踐行最理想的對質詰問方式，不過，在性侵害案件中，當被害者本身欠缺作證能力，或因恐懼以致於無法面對被告進行自由而完整的陳述時，基於保護被害者證人的目的，即有例外採取限制或剝奪質問權措施的正當性基礎。自歐洲人權法院與美國聯邦最高法院判決所樹立的人權保障基準觀之，在各種質問替代措施之間的選擇，應遵循「較佳防禦手段優先性原則」，在同樣可以達到保護證人目的的各種限制或剝奪手段當中，須以侵害質問權程度較輕微的手段為優先，且該未經完整對質詰問所取得之證詞，亦不得作為有罪判決的唯一關鍵性證據，以此調和被告與證人雙方之間的利益衝突。反觀我國《刑事訴訟法》、《證人保護法》、《性侵害犯罪防治法》、《兒童及少年性剝削防制條例》及《性侵害案件減少被害人重複陳述作業要點》等立法，雖已明訂各種質問替代手段，作為保護被害者證人的隔離措施，然規範未臻完善，實務發展上亦存有為保護證人而過度侵害被告質問權之現象。改善之道，首應落實證人保護必要性之調查程序，其次須以比例原則為基準，建構層級化的質問替代措施，於達成保護性犯罪被害者證人之目的的前提下，盡力保障被告的在場與提問機會，以求無悖於直接審理原則、比例原則、公平審判等刑事訴訟基本要求，並與國際人權保障基準接軌。

關鍵字

性侵害犯罪 ； 對質詰問權 ； 被害者證人保護 ； 保護必要性調查程序 ； 較佳防禦手段優先性原則

並列摘要

The defendant’s right of cross-examination against the witness can be deemed as a prevailing human right, and is also an indispensible element to guarantee a fair trial in judicial proceeding. Ideally, the general measure to conduct cross-examination should be a face-to-face confrontation in the court room; However, in sexual assault cases, the victim might be lack of ability to testify, or cannot testify freely and clearly due to fear of the defendant. To protect the victim-witnesses under this situation, limitations and deprivation of the right of cross-examination could be justified. From the perspective of human right protection established by European Court of Human Right and the U.S. Federal Supreme Court, choices of alternatives to cross-examination should be made in accordance with the principle of priority of taking the better defense for the accused. If the protection of witness can be secured, a least restrictive means against the right of cross-examination should be adopted. To reconcile the conflict of interest between the defendant and the victim, the testimony that has not been cross-examined cannot be used as the sole decisive evidence for a guilty verdict. Though, in Taiwan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Witness Protection Act, Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act, and Regulation for prevention of victim making repetitive Statement in Sexual Assault Cases stipulate certain alternatives for confrontation in order to protect victim-witness, which is not mature enough. In real practice, defendant’s right of cross-examination has been unduly limited or deprived for the protection of the witness. To correct this situation, implementation of investigation and classification of the necessity of witness protection in the investigation process must be strictly followed. Also, adoption of alternatives cater to the necessity of witness protection must be based on the principle of Proportionality in order to protect defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine the witness in the court room, while the protection of witness can be safeguarded at the same time, which also meet the basic requirements of criminal procedure, such as the principle of direct trial, fair trial and Proportionality, and conform to the prevailing international value of human right protection.

並列關鍵字

sexual assault crime ； right of confrontation ； protection of victim-witness ； investigation of necessity of witness protection ； priority of taking the better defense for the accused

參考文獻

2. 王兆鵬，〈對質詰問權與強制取證權〉，《台大法學論叢》，第28卷第3期，1999年4月，頁179-244。

3. 王珮玲，〈警察、檢察官、法官對社工認知之探討：以家庭暴力與性侵害案件處理為例〉，《台大社工學刊》，第21期，2010年6月，頁1-54。

17. 林鈺雄，〈對質詰問之限制與較佳防禦手段優先性原則之運用：以證人保護目的與視訊訊問制度為中心〉，《台大法學論叢》，第40卷第4期，2011年12月，頁2323-2395。

22. 高鳳仙，〈論我國之鑑定及鑑定證人制度與美國之專家證人制度在性騷擾及家庭暴力事件之角色扮演〉，《法令月刊》，第53卷第12期，2002年12月，頁14-32。

30. 彭南元，〈兒童性侵害案件中兒童證人及專家鑑定之研究─對最高法院八十八年度台上字第三七七四號判決之評析〉，《律師雜誌》，第253期，2000年10月，頁38-55。