偵查中羈押之程序保障─以強制辯護及閱卷權為中心

Abstract

羈押向來是法治國之刑事程序中棘手的難題，其一方面使追訴能夠有效進行，但另一方面卻嚴重干預了個人之人身自由。因此，透過羈押審查之程序保障確保羈押能夠在合乎其目的及比例原則之情況下進行，是正當化羈押程序的重要關鍵之一。羈押應遵守之程序保障種類繁多，本文著重於討論羈押審查中之強制辯護及閱卷權之保障；並鑒於偵查中往往涉及重要偵查利益及個人基本權保障之衝突，本文進一步聚焦於偵查階段之羈押審查程序。 具跨國性意義的歐洲人權法院案例法中，已明確強調基於對審及武器平等原則之要求，偵查中之羈押審查程序必須使辯護人能夠對挑戰羈押合法性為重要之資料進行閱卷；關於羈押審查中辯護人協助之必要性，雖然歐洲人權法院尚未有明確答案，惟本文認為，從歐洲人權法院案例法中採取的立場，似可推論出肯定答案。德國方面，於2009年以前，僅將羈押滿三個月列為強制辯護事由，偵查中羈押程序之閱卷權亦有以偵查目的為由加以限制的可能。鑒於羈押對基本權干預之嚴重性，德國於2009年羈押法修正時，將羈押執行列為強制辯護事由，並因應歐洲人權法院案例法，將偵查中羈押審查程序不得以偵查利益為由限制閱卷的見解加以明文規定。 依照我國刑事訴訟法規定，偵查中之強制辯護事由僅限於智能障礙者，而偵查中羈押審查程序之辯方亦無閱卷之權利可言。基於羈押對基本權干預之嚴重性及公平審判之維護，本文認為，首先，至少應將羈押列為偵查中之強制辯護事由，確保被告能於羈押審查程序中獲得辯護人協助；次者，應使羈押程序中之辯護人能對羈押決定具關聯性之卷證進行閱卷，以實現聽審權及武器平等原則之保障。

Detention is important for the purpose of prosecution, especially in the pretrial proceedings. On the other hand, it is the most serious infringement on the right if liberty. Therefore, habeas corpus proceedings must provide sufficient guarantees of the judicial procedure, including varied procedural rights. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights says, “In the view of the dramatic impact of the deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned, proceedings conducted under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention should in principle also meet, to the largest extent possible under the circumstances of an on-going investigation, the basic requirements of a fair trial, such as the right to an adversarial procedure.” In order to ensure the principle of equality of arms and the requirement for an adversarial procedure, the accused in a pretrial detention must have opportunities to access the file and be assisted by a legal representation. In 2009, the German Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to provide mandatory defence for the accused, if remand detention is executed against him. Furthermore, it also regulates, if the accused is in remand detention or in the case of provisional arrest, information of relevance for the assessment of the lawfulness of such deprivation of liberty shall be made available to the defence counsel. In Taiwan, since the regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused in pretrial detention does not have the right to having a defence counsel appointed by a judge or prosecutor. Moreover, a defence counsel does not have the right to access the case-files in pretrial proceedings, even if the accused is in remand detention. In conclusion of the thesis, to ensure the personal right of liberty, the mandatory defence shall be provided for the accused in the pretrial detention, and the defence counsel of the accused in pretrial detention shall have the right to access the case-files, which are relevant to the assessment of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty.