論審前不當公開與媒體預斷：以歐洲與美國案例法為中心

本篇論文探討審前不當公開與媒體預斷對刑事程序的影響，以及司法對此的因應之道。媒體、輿論與司法之間的互動關係，一直以來都是刑事法上的重要議題，隨著媒體傳播科技和電腦記憶能力的演進，新聞報導的衝擊愈來愈無遠弗屆，也愈來愈持久，更容易使公平審判原則、和刑事程序參與人陷入威脅。因此本論文以審前不當公開和媒體預斷為軸，輔以歐洲與美國的經驗，探討在什麼情況下，媒體和輿論對刑事程序的討論是不恰當的，以及政府對此應該如何因應。媒體和輿論對刑事程序的討論，是否確實會造成結果的偏頗，幾乎是無法證明的問題。因此與其掙扎於認定輿論是否導致法官偏見，不如從源頭思考，探討在人民知的權利之下，政府機關應如何將刑事程序相關資訊釋出給媒體，才不會侵害公平審判程序和程序關係人人格權。關於國家對審前不當公開和媒體預斷的因應之道，可以分為三方面：將刑事程序不公開、限制媒體新聞報導、課予訴訟上一定效果。就刑事程序不公開而言，不公開審前程序應較無爭議，但若要不公開法院審理程序，則僅限在特別極端的情況下方可為之。就限制媒體新聞報導而言，由權益受損的當事人提出民事請求是比較穩妥的作法，但若考量到當今媒體生態和輿論環境，國家似乎也有必要在某些情況下，約束媒體報導方式。最後，以訴訟上效果來說，歐洲與美國各自發展出不同的因應手段，值得審酌台灣國內狀況，並加以援用。本論文最後回歸我國法，檢視我國法下存在許久的偵查不公開原則，介紹此原則在我國運作的現況，探討何以偵查不公開原則的實踐效果不彰，並基於上開認知，嘗試提出解決方案。

關鍵字

審前不當公開；預斷；公平審判原則；無罪推定原則；人格權；偵查不公開

並列摘要

This thesis discusses the influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity and media prejudice toward criminal proceeding, as well as how judicial system should respond to it. The correlation between media, public opinion, and judicature has long been an important issue in the area of criminal law. As transmitting technology of media and memory capability of computer evolve, the impact of news reports has become farther and more long-lasting, making the principle of fair trial and parties in criminal proceeding more vulnerable. This thesis takes prejudicial pretrial publicity and media prejudice as axis, supported with the experience from Europe and United States, searching for that in what situation the discussion of criminal proceeding within media and public opinion is inappropriate, and that how the government should respond to it. Whether the discussion of criminal within media and public opinion could actually cause prejudice of the outcome of the proceeding is a question that almost cannot be proved. Rather than struggling to think whether public opinion lead to judges’ bias, it would be better to think from the origin, asking that, under the right to know of civilian, in what way can government release information regarding criminal proceeding to the media without infringing the principle of fair trial and the right of personality of the parties. The government’s response to prejudicial pretrial publicity and media prejudice can be split to three dimensions: closure of criminal proceeding, interference on news report, and legal effect on process. As to closure scheme, it is less controversial in closing pretrial proceeding, yet the closure of trial can only take place in extreme cases. As to interference scheme, the more applicable way is the civil claim of individual injured party. However, with regard to the media ecology and public opinion condition, it might be necessary that government in some cases intervene to regulate the reportage of media. As to the legal effect scheme, both Europe and United States have develop several measures that are worth consideration. Finally, this thesis goes back to Taiwan, inspecting the principle of secrecy of criminal investigation that exists in Taiwan for a long time. This thesis would introduce the inefficient practices of this principle and probe why, then attempts to give some practical solutions.

並列關鍵字

prejudicial pretrial publicity ； prejudice ； principle of fair trial ； presumption of innocence ； right of personality ； secrecy of criminal investigation