刑事訴訟拒絕證言權之研究

A Study on the Evidentiary Privilege in Criminal Procedure

陳人豪(Jen-Hao Chen)

指導教授 ： 林輝煌

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2014年)

摘要

證人的拒絕證言權是源自於不自證己罪原則下的概念，其重要性應與被告的緘默權同等重要，但在我國司法實務上證人行使拒絕證言權之頻率卻遠不及被告緘默權。或許是我國在拒絕證言權制度上不夠完善所導致，因此在本篇論文中不僅針對我國現狀做檢討，並且比較國外關於證人拒絕證言權的相關規定，提供我國立法者及司法實務做參考。

文中主要先將拒絕證言權區分成四大類型，分別為具有不自證己罪身分、具有親屬關係、具有保密義務之公務或業務關係以及其他未明文的拒絕證言權類型。並就拒絕證言權的行使與告知義務及違反效果作探討，除了行使的方式不同外，在告知義務的規範上，也產生一些不合理的現象而應該修法改善。在研究各種類型的拒絕證言權時，皆試圖從理論基礎著手，先徹底瞭解各個拒絕證言權所欲達成的目的，再參考外國相關規定與實際案例作為比較，以便發現我國規範上之缺失。

如因不自證己罪身分之拒絕證言權，得以具結方式代替釋明，可能造成的程序瑕疵，應該交由公正第三方的法院檢視。在親屬關係拒絕證言權之問題，則是範圍太過廣泛，而可能妨礙司法正義的實現。在公務秘密拒絕證言權方面，當管理公務秘密之人不允許公開時，應該使法院有適度審查之空間，否則易生弊端。在業務秘密拒絕證言權上，關於行使主體的認定應該考量制度目的所保護的秘密持有人，才能符合不自證己罪原則之精神。至於新聞記者拒絕證言權是我國在未明文拒絕證言權中最重要的類型，在國內外都發生過許多案例，實務需求性最高，應儘速立法規範。

關鍵字

告知義務 ； 不自證己罪特權 ； 拒絕證言權 ； 保密義務 ； 新聞自由

並列摘要

The witness’ privilege against testimony is a concept based on the principle of the privilege against self-incrimination. The importance of the privilege should be equal to the right of the silence of the defendants. However, the frequency of the witness to exercising the privilege against testimony in our judicial practice is much less than the right of the silence of the defendants. This may be caused by the systemic deficiency of the privilege against testimony. Therefore, this thesis reviews the status quo of the privilege against testimony of our judicial system, and compares the relevant provisions in foreign countries on the witness’ privilege against testimony. In order to provide some information to our legislators and judicial practitioners as reference.

First, the privilege against testimony is divided into four types in the thesis： the identity with self-incrimination；the identity with kinship；the identity with confidential obligations in official business or business；and other types is not expressly stipulated. The exploration of exercising the privilege against testimony、the obligation to inform, and the violation effect are also included in this research. In addition to the different methods to exercise, in the rule of the obligation to inform, also emerge some unreasonable phenomena which should be improved by law. The viewpoint of theory-based approach is needed when making a research of various types of the privilege against testimony. Starting from understanding thoroughly the purpose of every types of the privilege against testimony, and then refer to the relevant provisions of foreign countries with the actual cases as a comparison, in order to discover the defects of our law.

For example, when discussing about the type of the privilege against testimony with self-incrimination, the witness may be ordered to make an affidavit in lieu of stating the reason. The proceeding defects of this situation, should be reviewed by the impartial third-party at the court. Regarding the type of the privilege against testimony with kinship, the problem could be too extensive, which may interfere with the realization of judicial justice. In terms of the privilege against with confidential obligations in public office, when it comes to the officials who holds of the public official secrets is not allowed to disclose the secrets, the court should have chances to review properly, otherwise the defects are easily occur. As for the part of the privilege against testimony with confidential obligations in business, the qualification of the principle of the privilege against self-incrimination should reflect the fact that purpose of the system is to protect the secret holder. Furthermore, regarding the privilege against testimony with the press, which is the most significant type of the privilege that is not expressly stipulated in law, here are many different cases being addressed both in our country and abroad. It is the profession with high necessity in practice. The relevant rules should be legislated as soon as possible.

並列關鍵字

the obligation to inform ； the privilege against self-incrimination ； the evidentiary privilege ； the confidential obligations ； freedom of the press

參考文獻

6、范立達，記者拒絕證言權之研究，臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文，林子儀教授指導，2007年7月。

12、吳昭華、邱明秀，以SWOT分析助產人員之業務發展，助產雜誌，第53期，2011年11月。

7、朱石炎，刑事訴訟法（上），三民書局，2003年10月，修訂三版。

42、黃朝義，刑事訴訟法，新學林出版有限公司，2013年4月，三版。

8、朱石炎，刑事訴訟法論，三民書局，2010年9月，修訂三版。