評聶樹斌案再審判決回避王書金 兼論《刑事訴訟法》第242條之修改

Comment on the Judgment of the Nie Shubin Case Parrying Wang Shujin and Proposition on the Amendment of Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Law

王書金自認真凶，啟動並推動了複查程序，亦應對再審改判發生重要影響。但聶樹斌案再審判決則以“王某一案不屬於本案審理範圍”為由， 避開了對王書金自認真凶這一證據事實的評價。這一做法雖符合審理物件特定性的要求，且可避免與王書金案裁判的明顯衝突，但妨礙了改判理由充分性及裁判方式正當性 亦不能避免與王書金案裁判的“實質衝突”。為保證對案件的充分審理，根據證據相關性和審判法庭獨立性原則，因本案事實認定需要，可以對證明非本案嫌疑人、被告人的人可能係本案作案人的證據進行法庭調查和證據評價。張輝、張高平案再審判決可做範例。現行《刑事訴訟法》第242條第1項對新證據的規定，證明標準過高，不利於保障人權、糾正冤錯。應借鑒相關法例予以修改。

Wang Shujin confessed that he was the true murderer, which initiated the judicial review procedure, and had great influence on the commutation of the original sentence. However, based on the reason that 'Wang is not the object of trial in this case', the retrial judgment of the Nie Shubin case parried the fact that Wang Shujin confessed to be the true murderer. Although this complies to the requirement that the object of trial should be identical to object of prosecution, and can avoid conflict with the judgment of the Wang Shujin case, it harms the sufficiency of reasoning in the judgment and actually can' t avoid the 'substantial conflict' with the judgment of Wang's case. To realize thorough hearing and according to the principles of relevancy and independent trial, and to correctly determine facts in this case, the court can investigate and evaluate evidence that can prove a non- defendant to be the true criminal. The retrial judgment of Zhang Hui and Zhang Gaoping's case can be a good example. Article 242, section one of the present Criminal Procedure Law sets too high a standard of proof for presentation of new evidence, which is not good for protection of human rights and hinders the redress of wrongful convictions, thus it should be amended.