新聞自由與司法獨立之衝突－以犯罪新聞報導之媒體公審現象為核心

作為民主法治社會中獨占強制力的紛爭解決機制，司法獨立一直是政府分權制衡的重要指標，也是我國憲法明文規定的基本要求。但另一方面，為了促進公共事務的資訊流通、滿足知的權利並對政府的權力運作形成公共監督，新聞自由亦是我國憲法所保障的對象。當司法個案成為聚光燈的焦點、媒體與輿論試圖將影響力伸入法庭之際，上述的兩大憲法價值便可能形成彼此衝突的緊張關係。透過近年來多起重大刑事司法案件的觀察，我們可以發現：「輿論法庭」或「媒體公審」的現象一再衝擊了事件關係人的權利、甚或是社會對司法的整體信賴，尤其「人民參與審判」已經是當前我國司法改革的主力方向，隨著未受過專業法學訓練的一般大眾進入法庭、開始掌握判決的權力，媒體公審對個案形成的「預斷」效應更會是一個越來越不容我國忽視的重要議題。有鑑於此，本篇論文將從「媒體公審」及其相近概念的定義出發，試圖釐清媒體、大眾，與司法之間複雜的交互作用關係，並透過歷來案例探討此一現象的影響及其背後的成因，進而在現行法制下找出可能的應對手段。

關鍵字

媒體公審；媒體審判；輿論法庭；審判前報導；言論自由；新聞自由；司法獨立；公平審判；預斷

並列摘要

In a democratic society under rule of law, judicial trial is the only dispute resolution mechanism backed by compulsory force. The independence and fairness of the trial are not only an important indication of separation of government powers, but also an explicit requirement specified in our Constitution. On the other hand, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of the press for purposes of promoting free flow of information, satisfying the people's right to know, and achieving public oversight on the government. Once a case comes under the spotlight, the press and the public opinion trying to exert an influence on the court’s decision, the two constitutional values discussed above will be in tension with each other. By observing recent major criminal cases in Taiwan, we shall find that court of public opinion and trial by media are repeatedly impacting on the rights of relevant parties and even on the public trust in our judicial system. Considering our judicial reform is helmed into the direction of citizen participation, once the citizens who are without legal training step into the court and practice the power to adjudicate, the influence of pretrial publicity would be a serious issue we can no longer ignore. Therefore, in this thesis, we will start with the definition of “trial by media” and similar concepts, figuring out the complicated interplay between the news media, the public and the judicial system. We will also discuss the influences and causes of this phenomenon by analyzing existing cases, and try to suggest possible resolutions in our legal system.