對質詰問權保障標準取代傳聞法則之研究－以歐洲法發展為例

The Research on Using Standards for Protection of Confrontation to Replace the Hearsay Rule -Use the Development of European Law as Example

陳鈺歆(Yu-Hsin Chen)

指導教授 ： 林鈺雄

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.10746

摘要

刑事被告享有對質詰問權，乃是普世價值之基本人權，歐洲人權公約第6條第3項d款及聯合國公民及政治權利公約第14條第3項f款皆有明文規定，主要是作為被告的程序參與權，在確保被告在程序中有主動的參與地位，免於淪為程序客體，然而各國對於對質詰問權的保障皆存有不同程度規範，究竟質問權保障範圍及限制的界限是否有一跨國性的標準得以遵循？當質問權的行使與證人的利益衝突時，應如何在二者間取得平衡，方不至侵害被告的質問權，影響公平程序的進行，皆為本文研究重點。歐洲人權法院關於對質詰問權的保障作出為數不少的裁判，更整合了歐洲不同法系間的相異規範，建立對質詰問權保障的歐洲標準，本文從比較法的觀點，以歐洲人權法院及歐洲人權委員會裁判為研究對象進行案例的分析，歸納對質詰問權保障的跨國性標準，並以英國及德國為例，說明質問保障的歐洲標準如何影響英國傳聞法則的操作，以及德國偵查中被告質問權的強化和證人保護措施的使用界限。
我國最高法院對於傳聞法則的操作，因欠缺質問例外的審查標準，故認為只要存在第159條之3的質問障礙事由，又符合傳聞例外不同程度的可信性及必要性要件，系爭未經質問的證詞即得例外作為證據使用，然而單純將傳聞例外的可信性或必要性作為質問例外，將導致被告質問權的侵害；其次，最高法院對於第159條之5的運用，未區分被告是否有辯護人的協助，即以被告未對證人審判外的陳述異議或未聲請傳喚證人，逕而認定被告拋棄質問權的行使，則產生不當減輕法院傳訊證人的調查義務，亦對無辯護人被告保障不足等問題；又當被告質問權的行使與證人的權利發生衝突時，釋字第636號解釋雖已明確指出必須考量採取其他限制較輕微之手段，例如以隔離方式為對質詰問，惟最高法院仍未能依釋字第636號之精神，具體在個案中審查是否有限制質問權行使之必要？有限制質問權行使之必要時，應優先考量哪些措施？因缺乏對次佳防禦措施優先性的審查標準，造成事實上其實尚存在其他較佳的防禦措施可以採行，卻捨棄不用而逕以對被告防禦權侵害較大的方式，作為證人訊問程序替代方案，實已不當侵害被告的質問權行使。針對上述問題，本文以歐洲人權法院所建立的質問權保障標準，及英國與德國如何以其標準調校內國實務操作為借鏡，認為應以質問權保障的審查標準取代我國傳聞例外的操作，避免傳聞法則的運用對被告造成質問權侵害。

關鍵字

對質詰問權 ； 對質詰問證人 ； 傳聞法則 ； 傳聞例外 ； 歐洲人權法院 ； 公平審判 ； 證人保護 ； 秘密證人

並列摘要

It is the basic international human right that the accused has the right to confront the witness against him, which is regulated in European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 6-3-d and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 14-3-f. However, the norms of the right to confront witnesses in every country are varying in degrees, whether a transnational standard of the protection and limitation of the right of confrontation exists to comply with? There are a large number of judgments of European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) regarding to the right of confrontation and ECHR integrats different legal systems in Europe between the different norms, then also establishes the European standard of the right of confrontation. This essay analyses the case law of ECHR and the European Commission of Human Rights(EComHR), then generalizes a transnational standard of the protection of the right to confront witnesses. Moreover, it uses the United Kingdom and Germany as examples to show how this standard affects the operation of the British rule of hearsay, as well as the right to confront witnesses in investigation stage and the limits of using witness protection measures in Germany.
As to native law, the operation of the hearsay rule in Taiwan arises several problems. Due to a lack of standard of exceptions to the right of confrontation, the Supreme Court thinks exceptions of the hearsay rule are equal to exceptions of the right of confrontation, however, simply the credibility and necessity of the testimony, which are the elements of the exception of hearsay rule(§§159-1~159-3), are not enough to become the standard of exception to the right of confrontation. Besides, in what situation could be considered that the accused waives his right to confront witnesses? The application of §159-5 results in not only reducing the obligations of the court to summon witnesses, but also providing not enough protection to the accused who has no assistance of counsel. In addition, when the right of the witness conflicts with the right of the accused, the Supreme Court does not examine whether the relevant and sufficient reason to restrict confrontation exists or not, as well as what witness protection measures should be given priority. In response to these issues, this essay refers to the European standard of the right of confrontation established by ECHR and considers that we should use the standard of the protection of the right to confront witnesses to replace exceptions of the hearsay rule in practice for avoiding the violation of accused’s right to confront witnesses.

並列關鍵字

Confrontation ； Examine witness ； Hearsay rule ； European Court of Human Rights ； Right to fair trial ； Witness protection ； Anonymity

參考文獻

2、林永謀，《刑事訴訟法釋論（中）》，2007年。

3、林俊益，《刑事訴訟法概論（上）》，2007年8版。

4、林鈺雄，《刑事訴訟法（上）》，2007年5版。

2、王兆鵬，《辯護權與詰問權》，2007年。

2、呂雅婷，《刑事被告受律師協助權 : 以歐洲人權法院裁判為借鏡》，2007年台灣大學碩士論文。