The Right to Counsel of in Custody Suspects in Taiwan

臺灣刑事程序中身體受拘束犯罪嫌疑人律師依賴權之研究

伴隨著人權保障思潮的演進，臺灣刑事程序的制度及實務也必須有相稱的回應，在特定時空背景下，司法院大法官解釋第654號乃應運而生，宣告羈押法不當限制被告或犯罪嫌疑人與其辯護人接見通信之規定違憲。然除了羈押中被告與辯護人的接見通信權外，實務上更值得關注者，乃司法院大法官解釋第654號所未提及的尚未羈押之受拘捕犯罪嫌疑人在第一時間的律師接見通信問題，本文乃奠基於此，並參酌司法院大法官解釋第720號之精神，從比較法的觀察中，剖析臺灣刑事程序中嫌疑人之接見通信權（本文稱律師依賴權）制度的來龍去脈，並從中探索該制度之實然運作及檢討應然問題，並務實地提出解決應然問題的有效方法，以及給予第二波立法之參考建議。

In response to the development of protection of human rights, Judicial Yuan, Taiwan R.O.C. [hereinafter J.Y.]) Interpretation No. 654 (January 23rd, 2009) changed Taiwan’s criminal proceedings. It held that Article 23 Paragraph 3, and Article 28 of the Detention Act in Taiwan, which provided that when a counsel visits the accused in custody, the visitation shall be under surveillance and audio-recording without considering whether such surveillance complies with the purpose of detention or is necessary in maintaining the order of the detention facility or not, violated the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution in Taiwan and was inconsistent with the meaning and purpose to protect the right to litigate under Article 16 of the Constitution, and therefore shall be ineffective. Based on the above-mentioned judicial interpretations and J.Y. Interpretation No. 720 (May 16th, 2014), this article analyzes the right of visitation and correspondence between the defendant attorney and the accused in custody (e.g., the right to counsel of in custody suspects) under the Detention Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure in Taiwan through comparative law perspectives. By exploring problems in practice, this article will provide solutions as future legislative and amending proposals.