無罪推定與媒體預斷——以歐洲人權法院裁判為中心

Abstract

數位時代科技發達，隨著媒體傳播技術與電腦儲存能力的迅速發展，新聞報導的影響力已不再受限於時間與地域，其擴散速度更快、留存時間更長，對刑事訴訟中無罪推定原則、公平審判原則及程序參與人構成前所未有的挑戰與威脅。刑事案件在進入審判程序前即受到高度關注與報導，導致被告在未經法院正式審判的情況下，即被社會大眾視為有罪之現象愈加頻繁，形成所謂的「審前不當公開與媒體預斷」。此種現象不僅侵蝕被告應受保障之無罪推定原則，亦可能對司法程序的公正性造成重大影響，甚而動搖社會對司法制度的信賴基礎。2023年國民法官新制上路，在國民參審案件中，媒體預斷的問題將顯得更為嚴峻，成為吾人不得不加以重視的議題。 媒體預斷乃國際性的問題，歐洲人權法院便有大量裁判在處理媒體預斷可能侵害無罪推定，其中，不乏有個案被認為預斷的情形，已嚴重影響被告受無罪推定保障的權利。準此，本文以歐洲人權法院判例為核心，檢視和分析媒體預斷侵害無罪推定之認定標準。而媒體與社會輿論對於刑事案件的討論，是否確實會影響法官之審理，並進而導致判決結果之偏頗，實際上為無法證明的問題。因此，正確的態度，應是致力於制度之妥善設計，以完全遏止媒體預斷對刑事程序帶來的侵害。關於國家對媒體預斷的因應之道，可以從三個層面思考：分別是偵查不公開、媒體自律和課予特定訴訟上效果。落實偵查不公開將有助於從根源杜絕媒體的消息來源，同時，加強媒體自律亦可減少偏頗報導的出現。最後，就訴訟上效果而言，歐洲與美國分別發展出不同的應對機制，臺灣有必要審慎考量本土制度現況，汲取其經驗並適當借鏡。唯有多管齊下，始能真正阻止媒體預斷現象的不斷滋生。

In the digital age of rapid technological advancement, the influence of news reporting is no longer constrained by time or geography due to the swift development of media transmission technologies and computer storage capabilities. News spreads faster and persists longer, posing unprecedented challenges and threats to the presumption of innocence, the principle of fair trial, and the participants in criminal proceedings. Criminal cases are often subjected to intense media attention and coverage even before entering the trial stage, resulting in an increasingly common phenomenon where the accused is perceived as guilty by the public prior to any formal court judgment. This phenomenon, known as “pretrial prejudicial publicity and media prejudice,” not only erodes the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence but also threatens the fairness of judicial proceedings and may ultimately undermine public confidence in the justice system. With the implementation of the Citizen Judges Act in 2023, the issue of pretrial prejudicial publicity in citizen judge cases has become even more pressing, making it a matter that demands serious attention. Pretrial prejudicial publicity is a global issue, and the European Court of Human Rights has issued numerous rulings addressing how such prejudgment may infringe upon the presumption of innocence. In several cases, the Court has found that pretrial prejudicial publicity has seriously undermined the defendant’s right to be presumed innocent. Accordingly, this article focuses on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to examine and analyze the criteria used to determine whether media prejudgment constitutes a violation of the presumption of innocence. Whether media and public discourse on criminal cases actually influence judicial decision-making and lead to biased verdicts remains practically unprovable. Therefore, the appropriate approach should be to focus on the proper design of procedural safeguards to completely prevent the harm caused by media prejudgment to criminal proceedings. In terms of state responses to media prejudgment, three levels of intervention can be considered: non-disclosure of investigation (investigative confidentiality), media self-regulation, and the imposition of specific procedural consequences. Enforcing the principle of investigative confidentiality helps to eliminate media information sources at their origin. At the same time, strengthening media self-regulation can reduce the occurrence of biased reporting. Finally, in terms of procedural remedies, Europe and the United States have developed different response mechanisms. Taiwan must carefully consider the current state of its own legal system, drawing on their experiences and adopting appropriate measures as references. Only through a multi-pronged approach can the persistent spread of pretrial prejudicial publicity truly be curbed.