Zain Dean Case Aftermath: Acid Test for Justice System

Zain Dean Case Aftermath: Acid Test for Justice System
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19 2014

Summary: We are proud that ROC justice has established an international reputation for impartiality. The public must give the courts room. It must wait for the courts to determine whether the defendant is guilty. It must not cling to stereotypes and demand that the court accept its prejudices.

Full Text Below:

British businessmen Zain Dean fled because he killed a man in a drunk driving accident. A court of the third instance sentenced him to four years imprisonment. But he fled the ROC before his sentence could be imposed. The ROC government requested extradition from the United Kingdom. A British court concluded that the ROC complied with international law. Its judicial system met international law standards and practices, and could provide the accused with a fair trial. Zain Dean's plea was rejected. The British court ruled that he should be extradited back to the ROC to serve out his sentence.

The case has attracted considerable media attention on Taiwan. One reason is that the court ruling touches on the issue of sovereignty. The ROC government is an political entity that has long been ignored by the international community. The attention paid to the British court ruling reflected, to a considerable degree, our anxieties concerning sovereignty.

Great Britain has made its international political stance clear. British courts acknowledge the reality of territorial jurisdiction. They accept the ROC government's jurisdiction over Taiwan. Pragmatism has long been a hallmark of the British character. The public on Taiwan has certain expectations regarding ROC sovereignty. The British court affirmed that the ROC justice system met EU requirements for fairness and justice. It affirmed in effect that the ROC has attempted to implement the rule of law and establish a free society. ROC justice has placed it among the rank of nations that follow the rule of law. The British court agreed to extradite one of its own citizens to the ROC to serve out a sentence and face further prosecution. The British were unwilling to shield someone merely because he was one of their citizens. Here is a nation whose view of justice is not predicated upon national or tribal identity. Here is a model of justice that we on Taiwan ought to emulate.

Once Zain Dean has been successfully returned to Taiwan. It will be the turn of the ROC courts to uphold justice without prejudice. From the limited information that has been made public, once Zain Dean returns to Taiwan, he faces more legal problems. He may need to do more than just serve time. Following his departure, prosecutors indicted two of Zain Dean's friends. The charges include forgery and aiding a fugitive. They are accused of helping Zain Dean escape by allowing him use their passport. Since Zain Dean is the chief culprit, prosecutors will inevitably prosecute him for these crimes.

Zain Dean has been convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter. In fact, this was not the first time he was involved in a criminal case on Taiwan. Records indicate that he was involved in other crimes on Taiwan under a different name. But because he fled, nothing came of them. If this is true, old cases could be reopened. That is entirely forseeable. In other words, Once Zain Dean is extradited and returned to Taiwan, he may do more than serve time. Additional criminal charges may await him. He may face a civil suit for drunk driving and manslaughter. That goes without saying.

Zain Dean's public image has probably made him infamous on Taiwan. This is one reason he told the British court he could not receive a fair trial on Taiwan. The British court did not agree with him. It concluded that the courts on Taiwan would not necessarily be led by public opinion.

In view of the British court's decision, we must remind everyone that in any criminal trial, especially press cases, the media must avoid improper interference. It must give the presiding judges enough room to adjudicate independently. When the media addresses public issues, it must be constrained by journalistic ethics. Reporters must exercise restraint. This is a matter of civic responsibility. We inhabit a new s media environment. The Internet has become the new media. When it comes to journalistic ethics, civil society must make no distinctions between professional and amateur reporters. Everyone must be held to the same high moral standards.

The British court concluded that the ROC justice system meets contemporary rule of law standards. Therefore we must abide by the principle of presumption of innocence in our criminal proceedings. The presumption of innocence may not actually reflect the prosecution's inner attitudes. But it must be the principle by which the trial court operates. Otherwise, trials will be mere pro forma rituals. There will be no justice to speak of.

Reporters concerned about civil society and the rule of law should want the court to try a defendant in accordance with the presumption of innocence. Guilt must be determined by evidence, not by stereotypes or prejudices about the defendant. Defendants must not be convicted before they are even tried.

Put bluntly, Zain Dean unrepentantly fled punishment. That was surely distasteful. But did he commit new crimes during his flight? That must be determined by holding another fair trial. We are proud that ROC justice has established an international reputation for impartiality. The public must give the courts room. It must wait for the courts to determine whether the defendant is guilty. It must not cling to stereotypes and demand that the court accept its prejudices.

After all, the courts are under overwhelming pressure. Suppose they render a guilty verdict based on pressure from public opinion. In the eyes of third parties or the international community, will the verdict reflect independent judgment or social pressure? Excessive media influence can only undermine the impartial image of the court.

Zain Dean has been successfully extradited. Civil society on Taiwan must safeguard the hard won reputation of our justice system.

社論－林克穎案後續 司法真正的考驗
2014年06月19日 04:09
本報訊

英商林克穎因酒駕撞死人逃逸，遭法院三審判決應處4年徒刑定讞，卻於發監執行前潛逃出境，經我國向英國請求引渡，英國法院基於台灣具有國際法之領域地位，且司法制度與實踐均符合國際法標準，足以給予被告公平審判，乃駁回林克穎的抗辯，判定應予引渡回台灣服刑。

此案引起台灣輿論高度重視，原因之一是判決涉及的主權議題。英國法院的裁判，相當程度上，回應了台灣因實體存在長期受到國際社會漠視，因而產生的主權情緒與焦慮。

本於英國既有的國際政治立場，英國法院以領域管轄之現實存在做為裁判基礎，接受了台灣領域管轄的正當性，符合英國向來服膺的實用主義性格，但是滿足了台灣社會最低度的主權意識；確認台灣司法合乎歐盟要求審判公平正義的規格，不啻驗證了台灣在追求法治開放社會中曾有的一些努力，已使台灣司法權的表現躋身法治國家之林。而英國法院同意將其國民遣付台灣服刑，甚至進一步接受司法審判，顯示英國法院不因林克穎是其國民而護短，這是一種不被國族本位思想矇住眼睛的司法態度，值得台灣司法效法。

林克穎成功引渡回台之後，就輪到台灣的法院展現什麼才是公正無成見而不偏頗的司法了。就已經公開的有限資料看起來，林克穎回到台灣所面臨的法律問題，可能還不只是服刑而已。在他離境之後，檢方已經著手追訴他的兩個朋友，罪名包括偽造文書與藏匿人犯等等，也就是指控他們有幫助林克穎使用他人護照出境的行為。林克穎既是正主，檢方不免也會繼續追究他在這一方面的法律責任。

其實林克穎酒駕傷人的案件，好像不是他第一次在台灣涉及刑事案件。資料顯示之前他似乎曾經以不同的姓名在台灣有過其他的刑事麻煩，但也因為離境而不了了之。如果此說屬實，前案重新開啟，也是可以預見。換句話說，林克穎引渡回台之後，不但要入監服刑，還可能會有更多新的刑事訴訟程序等著他。他同時還要面對酒駕肇事的民事求償，又不待言。

林克穎在台灣的公共形象，可能已經到了聲名狼藉、無以復加的程度，這正是他在英國法院主張台灣法院不可能公正審判的理由之一。雖然英國法院並未同意他的說法，而認定台灣的法院可以不受公共輿論的影響。

有鑑於英國法院的判決，我們必須提醒，在任何一場刑事審判中，尤其是公共矚目的刑事案件，媒體應避免基於新聞的需要而妄加干涉，讓出足夠的空間容許法官獨立審判，這原是媒體從事公共議題討論所應該把握的新聞倫理。基於這項原則，媒體工作者的自制，是具有公民社會意義的事。以今日的媒體環境，網路已有成為新型態媒體的趨勢，公民社會裡的新聞工作倫理，應該不分專業或是業餘媒體工作者，均一體適用。

如果我們對於英國法院認定台灣的司法合乎當代法治正義的要求，我們就必須落實並堅持刑事訴訟無罪推定原則。無罪推定原則，可能不是檢方追訴犯罪時真正的立場，但必須是職司審判的法院所必須遵循的原則。否則審判就不免只是一種過場，將無真正的公正可言。

而關心公民社會法治原則的媒體，也應該希望法院能夠依照無罪推定原則審判，只是根據證據定罪，而非帶著被告有罪的成見或偏見，未審而心中已然加以定罪。

說的更白些，林克穎逃避服刑不知悔改，固然令人不齒，但他究竟是否在逃避服刑過程中犯下新的罪行，就必須經過另一場公正的審判才能確定。我們既然自豪於台灣司法業已樹立了公正可信賴的國際形象，社會輿論就應該讓出足夠的空間，等待法院用裁判告訴社會被告有沒有犯罪，而不是妄自形成定見要求法院接受。

畢竟，法院在一面倒的壓力下，做成合乎輿情期待的有罪判決，在第三人或國際社會的眼裡，恐怕很難分辨那是獨立判決，還是曲從社會壓力的結果，過多的輿論指導棋，反而減損法院的公正形象。

林克穎的引渡可望成功，台灣的公民社會再進一步共同維護來之不易司法名譽的時候到了！