國家犯罪挑唆之研究─以歐洲人權法院裁判為中心

Abstract

「犯罪挑唆」乃國家利用便衣警察或線民引誘、挑唆行為人犯罪之偵查手法。近數十年來，出現許多無犯罪人、隱密以及組織犯罪，以通常調查方式難以偵查，例如毒品、槍械走私、偽造貨幣等案件，犯罪挑唆可以隱密深入犯罪環境，促使行為人顯露實行行為，實為有效偵查之手段。然而，偵查人員在面對績效誘惑和偵破壓力下，可能對無犯罪嫌疑的行為人，採取威脅、逼迫或極高利益等不當壓力，促使其犯罪，則嚴重違反憲法上法治國原則。關於挑唆手段合法與否的判斷，我國實務及學界的多數見解傾向行為人是否已具備犯意的的「主觀說」，僅少數學說提及國家行為界限的「客觀說」。而從近年我國實務判決結果的統計觀察，採取行為人主觀判斷者，易流於過於抽象、理由不備的有罪判決，實有恣意認定之嫌，主觀說標準容有討論調整的空間。 近年來，在歐洲人權法院出現相關的案例，從歐洲人權公約第6條第1項「公平審判原則」，嘗試說明國家行為的合法界線，是減少行為人主觀面向的判斷，著重客觀國家行為規範，例如國家必須先調查犯罪嫌疑取得具體證據、挑唆行為不得施以過度壓力、必須有中立機關監督等，一旦違反公平審判原則，則不得為有罪判決，部份案例中採取證據禁止或程序中止的法律效果。自歐洲人權法院的標竿判決作出後，各公約國紛紛調校其內國判決方向，其中具歐陸法代表性的德國，雖肯定應先踐行對犯罪嫌疑人的調查後，始得為挑唆行為，而且不得實施過當壓力，但德國實務並未採取人權法院所建議的法律效果，而維持以往的量刑方案，引發國內學說抨擊與討論；另外，以案例法為主的英國，亦援引歐洲人權法院的裁判，肯認偵查機關應先調查犯罪嫌疑、掌握具體證據，在偵查手段上，國家應提供尋常機會，如有違法情事，法官得斟酌給予證據禁止或程序中止的法律效果。本文從國內學說及實務運作下的問題出發，嘗試從比較法觀點，在相似案例下，觀察其他國家實務和學說的處理模式及觀點，以尋求更理想的解決方式。

“Entrapment” is a crime investigative method that requires the use of undercover police and informants to infiltrate the criminal environment and induce the suspect to commit crimes. This method is particularly effective in combating the victimless (consensual), clandestine and organized criminal crimes. These crimes, including drug trafficking, firearms smuggling, money counterfeiting etc., are difficult to be investigated by traditional methods. However, the use of entrapment raises the concern for a breach of The Principle of Rule of Law. By the means of incitement or threat, the undercover agents may proactively force the suspects, who originally don’t have crime predisposition, to commit crimes. In judging the legality of such investigative method, there are two formulations: subjective test and objective test. Subjective test considers the predisposition of suspects; while, the objective test emphasizes the boundary of the state’s activities. In Taiwan, judicial practices and majority of academics incline to the use of the subjective test for determining the legality of entrapment; while, there are some academics sympathetic towards the objective test. According to the analysis of recent judicial verdicts, the utilization of subjective test tends to produce a guilty verdict with insufficient and abstract reasoning. The subjective test is, therefore, needed some further adjustments. In recent years, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has defined the legality of entrapment from the perspective of objective test through various cases. Based on the principle of “fair trail” in the Article 6-1 of European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR tries to define the legal confines of the state’s behaviors, and reduce the emphasis on the suspect’s predisposition. Under the consideration of ECHR, the government is required to prove the crime suspicion by obtaining concrete evidences of perpetration before entrapment. In addition, the undercover agents should not impose excess pressure on suspects, and any inducement in entrapment is subject to the supervision of independent institution. Once the government behaviors violate the principle of fair trail, no guilty verdict can be pronounced. In some cases, ECHR excluded evidences from illegal entrapment and even went so far to terminate the litigation procedure. The convention states have followed the leading cases of ECHR on entrapment but with varying degree. In Germany, the judicial practice approves of an appropriate investigation before the use of entrapment, but the court does not accordingly adopt the legal effect suggested by ECHR, but retain its previous measurement of penalty, causing academic debates. In the United Kingdom, the court has followed the spirit of ECHR by requiring appropriate procedures before entrapment and the judge has rights to exclude the evidence and terminate the case if he finds an inappropriate entrapment. This essay aims to provide a better solution for the legal judgment on entrapment for Taiwan’s judicial system. The essay consults not only the judicial practice and academic debates in Taiwan but also cross-examine the practices and theoretical debates in two European countries, namely Germany and the United Kingdom. The essay, therefore, is able to provide insights for Taiwanese legal system from a comparative legal perspective.