Politics

Judiciary eyes new law to deliver speedier trials

• Publication Date：08/06/2009
• Source： China Times

The Judicial Yuan is mulling a new law which would allow courts to throw out criminal cases where a final verdict still has not been reached despite a lengthy litigation process.

Mindful that “justice deferred is justice denied,” the proposed legislation is intended to forestall the occurrence, as has frequently happened in the past, where criminal cases drag on for 20 or even 30 years.

According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretations No.446 and No. 530 of the constitution, the people have a right to a fair and speedy trial, officials from the Judicial Yuan said. Ensuring that defendants have a fair and speedy trial has become enshrined as a basic constitutional right, one which has now become a universal human right as well.

For all these reasons, the Judicial Yuan is now drafting its bill on “fair and speedy court trial,” the officials said.

The bill contains a total of 16 articles, some of which are: that those involved in the litigation process should exercise their rights in good faith; that their rights should not be abused; and that there should not be any needless delays during the judicial process.

The proposed legislation would apply to cases brought on by public prosecutors, as well as those initiated by private citizens.

The bill says that special priority must be given to cases where the accused is being held in detention while still awaiting a verdict. These cases must be tried post haste, and if necessary consecutive court sessions have to be held for the cases to be resolved as soon as possible.

After a case has been accepted by a court, if a verdict is not reached “within a specified time period,” the court will have the right to throw out the indictment.

The Judicial Yuan has yet to define the length of "a specified.” Taking the actual current legal situation into consideration, one version of the bill says the period should be 10 years, another version says it should be 12 years. The two versions have been put forward for the public’s consideration.

There are also two versions of the bill relating to how long the intervals can be between court sessions. One version says the interval should be less than seven days, another version says it should be less than 14.

In the absence of new evidence or reasons, prosecutors are not allowed to re-indict a defendant once the previous indictment has been rejected by the courts, the bill says.

In addition, the bill says that if a lower court’s ruling on a criminal case has been made more than six years ago, and if the Supreme Court has sent back a revised ruling on more than three occasions, prosecutors are not permitted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court again.