論對辯護人強制處分之限制

發現真實為國家追訴機關之重要任務，國家亦因此得以對於被告與被告以外之人實施多種之強制處分，以取得、保全案件證據。在現行法下，除了辯護人得以主張拒絕證言拒絕就業務知悉事項證言之外，皆可以對辯護人發動各種強制處分，且就辯護人發動強制處分於其門檻及發動要件，並未設有特別之限制。然而，辯護人扮演協助被告防禦之角色，與被告間因著這種特殊的協助關係而與一般第三人有所不同。因此，是否應該因為被告與辯護人間之特殊關係作為限制對於辯護人強制處分之理由，即成為本文所想要探討之問題。本文認為，辯護人為被告完整行使防禦權之重要一環，被告之辯護權具有憲法位階，應給予絕對的保障。為保障被告辯護權之行使，必須確保被告與辯護人間建立信賴關係，此即仰賴於被告與辯護人有自由交流之權利與機會。所稱自由交流，一方面是指被告與辯護人有積極為溝通之權利、國家不得加以干預；另一方面，則是指國家不得入侵被告與辯護人間之交流內容，更甚以之作為證據用以指控被告。如非如此，將使得被告之辯護權保障成為空談。為了保障被告與辯護人間之自由交流權，我國法是以自由交流權（刑事訴訟法第34條）及辯護人之拒絕證言權之規範加以保障。然而，在這樣的保障範圍下，國家仍有可能藉由其他強制處分架空拒絕證言權之規範，取得辯護人本得以拒絕證言權之內容。故現行法下對於自由交流權之保障尚嫌不足。因此，本文藉由探討英美法上律師與當事人秘匿特權之概念，德國法上自由交流權、拒絕證言權及對於他種偵查處分限制之規範，具體化我國自由交流權之概念，接下來並探討英美、德國法上在面臨秘匿特權/自由交流權與發現真實產生衝突時之調和方式，最後提出修法建議。

關鍵字

防禦權；辯護權；秘匿特權；自由交流權；拒絕證言權

並列摘要

Discovering the truth is an important mission for a prosecutor, therefore the government is allowed to implement enforcement actions towards the third party. According to the existing laws, there are no restrictions in enforcement actions for defense attorneys. However, the mission of defense attorneys is to assist defendants, which creates a special relationship between a defense attorney and a defendant. Whether or not this special relationship can be a reason to restrict enforcement actions for defense attorneys is the key issue discussed in this article. To protect a defendants right to counsel, the government has to make sure a fiduciary relationship between the defendant and the attorney is established, and the foundation of this fiduciary relationship is that the defendant and attorney have opportunities to communicate. Furthermore, the prosecution agency is not allowed to interrupt or invade this communication. Even though in Taiwan this communication is protected by law, the laws do not extend far enough, and the government is allowed to take other actions to get around the protection of the defendants right to communicate with their attorney. Thee purpose of this article is to solve this problem, by looking at regulations in common law and in the country of Germany.