The Duty of Those in Power is to Improve Systems, Not Intervene in Individual Judicial Cases: Response to the Chiayi District Court's 2008st Criminal Case No. 6 Verdict on the Train Police-Stabbing Incident

On April 30, the Chiayi District Court delivered a verdict in case 108-Chung-Su-6, acquitting the defendant Cheng Tsai-yu in the train police-stabbing incident and ordering his placement in an appropriate facility for five years of custodial care. This verdict sparked widespread discussion and led to personal attacks on the presiding judge and the evaluating psychiatrist. President Tsai Ing-wen, Premier Su Tseng-chang, and Minister of Justice Tsai Ching-hsiang all expressed opinions on this case, which our Foundation finds highly inappropriate. We hereby offer the following statement for the consideration of all sectors of society:

1. The President, the Premier of the Executive Yuan, and the Minister of Justice Must Not Express Opinions on Ongoing Judicial Cases, Otherwise They Risk Interfering with Trials

   Article 80 of our Constitution stipulates: "Judges shall be beyond party affiliations and shall, in accordance with the law, conduct trials independently, free from any interference." This provision for judicial independence is primarily designed to prevent administrative officials or legislators from interfering with ongoing judicial cases, thereby providing adjudicators with a pure trial space. While prosecutors' investigation or appeal of individual cases is subject to the principle of prosecutorial unity—whereby chief prosecutors may direct and supervise cases, which must be done in writing with stated reasons pursuant to Article 92 of the Judges Act—administrative officials and legislators outside the prosecutorial system, based on the external independence of prosecution, must not interfere with prosecutors' investigations or appeals either, thereby granting prosecutors reasonable working space. Therefore, following our nation's transition to democracy, administrative officials and legislators have avoided expressing opinions on ongoing judicial cases. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice holds no power to direct or supervise individual prosecutorial cases and must not express opinions on them.

   Following the Chiayi District Court's acquittal in this police-stabbing case, President Tsai Ing-wen responded by supporting the prosecutors' decision to appeal. Premier Su Tseng-chang expressed disappointment and astonishment regarding the Chiayi District Court's acquittal, stating that criminal sentencing should be reconsidered. Minister of Justice Tsai Ching-hsiang stated that the act of killing a police officer is intolerable to heaven and earth and unforgivable by the people, and that the Chiayi District Prosecutors Office would file an appeal to ensure that criminals do not escape criminal responsibility under the pretext or reason of mental disorders. All three administrative officials have received a complete legal education and are well aware of the aforementioned judicial independence and external prosecutorial independence; yet, influenced by populism and public opinion, they fell into the error of interfering with the judiciary.

   We ask the three administrative officials: Have you reviewed the case files and evidence of the police-stabbing case? Did you participate in the trial process? Why do you express disappointment and astonishment over the acquittal? You three occupy high positions, yet you hold no power to direct or supervise the prosecutorial system; why did you express support for the appeal, thereby indirectly negating the first-instance verdict? If you were a first-instance judge, how immense would the pressure be when facing the accusations of three high-ranking officials in power? If you were a second-instance judge, would you feel that your trial space has been compressed? After conducting the proceedings, what should you do if your inner conviction happens to be the same as that of the first-instance judge?

   As the highest head of judicial administration, Judicial Yuan President Hsu Tsung-li must certainly not intervene in individual cases either; however, when judges suffer improper interference from high-ranking administrative officials that severely impacts their trial space, how can you remain silent?

2. The Responsibility of Those in Power Lies in Improving Relevant Systems

   This police-stabbing case reveals numerous systemic problems. The responsibility of those in power lies in improving relevant systems to prevent unfortunate incidents from happening in the future, and in establishing more appropriate regulations for already-occurred cases so they can be handled properly. These are explained as follows:

   1. Review and Implementation of Mental Health Regulations to Prevent Future Unfortunate Incidents

      Cheng, the suspect in the police-stabbing case, suffers from schizophrenia and likely persecutory delusions. He had seen a psychiatrist for 10 years and stopped taking his medication more than two years ago. Everyone's panic is: will other schizophrenia patients who are not receiving medical treatment commit murder again? Article 15 of the Mental Health Act provides for compulsory hospitalization and compulsory community treatment, while Articles 29 and onward provide for medical assistance, reporting, and tracking protection. However, do these provisions leave room for review? Are relevant medical resources sufficient? Are there difficulties in their implementation and what are the solutions? These are the responsibilities of those in power and legislators.

   2. Strengthening Education and Training for Frontline Police Officers in Dealing with Mental Patients

      The 2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform proposed two police reforms: establishing a "Police Education and Training Committee" and a "Police Administration Performance Management Committee," neither of which has been implemented to date. The Police Union issued a statement regarding this case on May 1, advocating that the United States has so-called crisis intervention teams taught by mental health professionals, with course content including symptom recognition and adopting different measures for different types of mental patients to reduce duty risks. Our police force has no such education and training at all. Those in power should strengthen frontline police officers' cognition and response strategies toward mental patients, implement the aforementioned two resolutions of the National Conference on Judicial Reform, enhance police officers' operational capabilities, and take preventative measures.

   3. Reviewing Mental Evaluations and Establishing a Judicial Science Committee and Standard Operating Procedures

      Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Criminal Code stipulates: "An act shall not be punished if, at the time of commission, due to a mental disorder or other mental defect, the actor is unable to distinguish that their act is illegal or lacks the capacity to act based on such distinction." Relevant laws do not specify how many psychiatrists must conduct an evaluation. After this case was acquitted, various sectors argued that evaluations could be conducted by three psychiatrists, or that they should be conducted by multiple psychiatrists through a committee. All these are open to discussion and deserve review. Trials in many fields in our country rely on the assistance of forensic medicine, evaluations, and other judicial sciences; however, our country's forensic medicine and evaluations lack Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and laboratory accreditation. The 2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform resolved that a Judicial Science Committee should be established to build relevant systems. The Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for implementing this resolution, has made no progress to date. Minister of Justice Tsai Ching-hsiang, you have neglected your duty to establish the systems you ought to have built; how can you have the nerve to intervene in an individual case?

   4. Whether Mentally Impaired Persons Acquitted by the Court Can Be Cured Without Risk of Endangering Public Safety

      Article 87 of the Criminal Code stipulates: "When a person is not punished due to the causes under Paragraph 1 of Article 19, and circumstances indicate a risk of reoffending or endangering public safety, they shall be placed in an appropriate facility to undergo custodial care." Paragraph 3 stipulates a period of five years or less. Recently, legislators expressed that this should be extended to 10 years, which is indeed worth exploring; but the key point is whether they can be cured during the custodial period, and whether expert evaluation should be required to decide on extending or shortening the custodial period. It is understood that when the court acquits a mentally impaired person, it orders their placement in an appropriate facility for five years of custodial care; however, whether judicial units and health and welfare departments are unable to effectively coordinate and smoothly transition them to hospital treatment remains a major question. This is the system that those in power should care about and actively improve.

   5. There is Vast Room for Improvement in Crime Victim Protection

      The feelings of the parents of the deceased police officer Li Cheng-han in facing this case are deeply heartbreaking and distressing. The state has a responsibility to protect crime victims. Our country has a Crime Victim Protection Act and a Crime Victim Protection Association; however, the regulations of the act are quite insufficient, and the operation of the association has degenerated into bureaucratic superficiality. More than half of its budget of over NT$ 200 million each year is not used for crime victim services. The Judicial Reform National Congress offered many suggestions, but after two and a half years, the Ministry of Justice has still not submitted any amendment draft. President Tsai and Premier Su, urging the Ministry of Justice to accelerate the improvement of systems related to crime victims is the top priority.

   The systems in items 2, 3, and 5 were all resolved upon at the 2017 Judicial Reform National Congress. We once again call upon President Tsai to urge relevant units to accelerate their implementation!

Press Contact

Judicial Reform Foundation, Chairperson: Attorney Lin Yung-sung