國際刑事司法互助與跨境取證—借鏡歐盟法

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Justice And Cross-Border Evidence- Observed from EU Law

劉倩妤(Chien-YU LIU)

指導教授 ： 馬躍中

國立中正大學/教育學院/犯罪防治學系/碩士(2016年)

摘要

伴隨全球化潮流的興起與經濟結盟,從國界分明,⾛向無國界的四海一家, 龐⼤利益與便利,在看不⾒見的幽黑一隅,犯罪,伺機⽽而起。在全球化下的犯罪, 已不再區分我國或他國犯罪,而係新興型態的跨國犯罪勢力抬頭。如何因應全球化的犯罪並予以抗制,乃世界各國積極對應的燙⼿山芋。有⾔道:「無救濟無權利」。有鑒於此等防範跨國犯罪共識,各國建立起區域性防禦聯盟等相關互助機制。

國際刑事司法互助的發展行之久遠,始於 18 世紀歐洲大陸的政治犯引渡作為開端。關於司法互助的合作種類繁多,透過基礎原理原則介紹後,⾸先由我國刑事司法互助現狀延伸討論關於兩岸簽訂互助協議之證據評價與刑事訴訟程序問題。其中關於跨境取證問題,是本⽂聚焦與探究的部分。故本文以我國最⾼法院 101 年台上字第 900 號判決以及 102 年台上字第 675 號判決作為引⼦,拋出若干證據評價的認定標準,以及跨境取證的程序瑕疵問題,雖此部分涉及傳聞法則的運用,囿於篇幅與研究限制關係,本⽂並未詳加描述,僅透過代表性判決凸顯目前刑事司法程序的瑕疵與不足,有待⽴法者商議討論。同場加映最新判決:104 年台上字第 2479 號刑事判決推翻既往前述標竿性判決認定,詮釋一個嶄新的扉⾴。

其次,藉由比較法評析歐盟法訂定的框架決議,探討歐盟法的制定規範對於歐盟會員國內國法的因應與對策:如何面臨在內國法秩序原則下,融⼊歐盟法位階之法律作為法源依據,作⼀通盤探討。

最後,檢視目前已納入我國內國法化完成的兩公約其中之《公民與政治權利國際公約》第 14 條相關問題,⽐較歐洲人權法院奉為圭臬之《歐洲人權公約》作為人權保障的準則,探討相關優劣缺失。以及簡易評析歐盟各會員國⽬前已適⽤並內國法化之最新版本:於 2014 年 4 ⽉ 3 日通過《歐盟刑事偵查令狀指令》, 最後給予淺顯拙⾒。

關鍵字

歐洲人權公約 ； 歐盟偵查令狀 ； 歐盟證據令狀 ； 跨境取證 ； 證據排除 ； 國際刑事司法互助

並列摘要

While the convenience of globalization enhanced cross-border transactions, it also facilitates the development of modern crimes from domestic to transnational, as they often come with greater profit in return. Crimes are no longer bound by borders. The challenge of suppressing crimes, the ever increasing transnational crimes in particular, has become an emerging issue for the countries commonly and collectively. In response, certain assistance, cooperative mechanisms, and regional defense alliances are established throughout the globe under the consensus of countries to fight against transnational crimes.

The beginning of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Justice development may be dated back to the first emergence of the concept "extradition of political prisoners in continental" in Europe in the 18th century, and gradually turned into its various forms today. Accordingly, this article will start by introducing the principles of International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and which will be followed by a further discussion on the mutual assistance in criminal matters between Taiwan and China, and in specific, the questions of acquisition, evaluation, and recognition of evidence in Criminal Procedure from such a mechanism. This will lead to the key focus of this article - Transnational evidence acquisition and its evaluation, which this article will provide two rulings of Taiwan Supreme Court as examples for the purpose of understanding the issue of procedural flaws and its effect to the evaluation of evidence in practice, as well as the progress of the position and interpretation from the Supreme Court on such matter.
This article will further adopt the research method of comparative law by providing the research results regarding the formulation and development of the Framework Decision of European Union (hereinafter "EU"), as well as its impact to the domestic legislation of the Member Nations, in order to deliver comments and suggestion to Taiwan by taking the EU experience as our reference.

Since International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter "ICCPR") has taken its transformation into a domestic law in Taiwan, this article will explore the issues arisen from the Covenant, particularly article 14, and its comparison of advantageous and disadvantageous with The European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter " ECHR") in terms of human rights protection. By doing so, this article will also be providing analysis to the domestic legislations of the EU Member Nations in the post European Investigation Order in criminal matters Directive (Directive 2014/41/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 3 April 2014) era.

並列關鍵字

European Investigation Warrant ； European Convention on Human Rights ； European Evidence Warrant ； Cross-border evidence ； Exclusionary Rule of Evidence ； International Legal Aid

參考文獻

林鈺雄，《刑事訴訟法上冊總論編》，元照，2013年8月。

王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕，《刑事訴訟法上》，承法，二版，2013年9月。

王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕，《刑事訴訟法下》，承法，二版，2013年9月。

林永謀，《刑事訴訟法釋論（中）》，冠順，2010年12月。

黃朝義，《刑事訴訟法－證據篇》，元照，2002年11月。