(Staff reporter) The Judicial Yuan held on July 4 a “Public Hearing on the Draft Regulations Regarding Confidentiality of Investigations”. Law professors from different schools as well as representatives from the Taipei Legal Correspondent Association, Taiwan Bar Association, Legal Aid Foundation, Judicial Reform Foundation and various local bar associations, the National Communications Commission, Ministry of Justice and concerned agencies were invited to attend to deliberate on the formulation of the said regulations.
This public hearing was held in compliance with the resolution attached to the amendment to Paragraphs 3 and 5 (already promulgated on June 13 2012) of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that required the Judicial Yuan to coordinate with the Executive Yuan and work out a corresponding set of regulations within five months after approval of the amendment and also hold a public hearing before formulating the regulations.
During the hearing, the attendees made comprehensive discussions on the issues of (1) the subjects to which the regulations were to apply, (2) the contents of the regulations and the definition of the “information obtained during the course of an investigation” set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 245, (3) the definition and approaches of exceptional “limited disclosure” set forth in Paragraph 3 of article 245 and its difference from the term of “public disclosure” adopted before the amendment, (4) the definition of the proviso of “unless otherwise permitted by law, or it is necessary for the protection of public interest or legitimate interest” as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 245 and the definition of the “personnel performing their duty under law during the investigation”, (5) whether the current regulation on limited disclosure by prosecution, police and investigation agencies of information obtained in the course of an investigation was compliant with the principle of “confidentiality of investigations,” whether further improvements could be made, and how freedom of the press and the public’s right to know could also be guarded, (6) how to establish a mechanism for reporting of practices in violation of the principle of confidentiality of investigations, and (7) whether the practice of prosecution, police and investigation agencies to designate one spokesperson to release information in relation to a case under investigation could prevent violations of the principle of “confidentiality of investigations.
The attendees achieved consensus on definition of the subjects to which the regulations on confidentiality of investigation applied being prosecution, police and investigation agencies but excluding the media and journalists and that the state would create an objective and neutral agency to supervise questioning during the investigation process so as to ensure violators would be held responsible. However, the attendees held different views toward whether the said subjects should also include the attorneys for the defendant and the plaintiff. Some asserted these individuals had to have been included during the legislative process as the subjects to which the regulations were applicable; otherwise, the said regulations would be meaningless. Others thought such inclusion would not be compliant with the principle of legal reservation and therefore in violation of the principle of explicit authorization in the parent law. The Judicial Yuan will sort out these different ideas and use them as references when drawing up the Draft Regulations on the Confidentiality of Investigations.
|
