論法庭影音採訪行為之憲法基礎及司法政策

The Constitutional Basis and Judicial Policy of Audio-Visual Newsgathering of Courts

2017年召開之司法改革國是會議，決議司法院應研議法庭直播。惟刑事法學者及法官基於審判公正及訴訟當事人權利之保護，多持保留意見。不過，包含法庭直播在內的法庭影音採訪，是否具有憲法基礎，則有進一步討論的空間。如果能釐清法庭影音採訪之憲法基礎及內涵，也才可能與其他相衝突之憲法權利及基本原則，進行利益衡量，規範具體要件。因此，本文擬以審判公開及表現自由為中心，檢討法院組織法第90條限制法庭影音採訪規定之合憲性，提出法釋義學及司法政策之建議。鑒於我國相關討論較少，本文以日本法為主，英國法為輔，分析日英兩國百年來之演進軌跡。日本法結合審判公開與表現自由，賦予法庭影音採訪之憲法基礎，可供我國法釋義學參考。英國法以審判公開為根據，逐步容許法庭影音採訪行為，累積豐富實作經驗及成果，可作為我國司法政策參考。

In 2017, National Conference on Judicial Reform made a resolution that Judicial Yuan shall consider adopting the live-stream coverage of courts. Scholars of criminal law and judges are opposing the resolution because it may undermine the fair trial and litigant’s rights. However, the constitutional basis of audio-visual newsgathering of courts is an important issue which shall be clarified and balanced with the other constitutional rights and principles. To examine the constitutionality of Court Organic Act § 90, this paper discusses the meaning of open justice and freedom of expression. Given the fact that there are few studies about this issue in Taiwan, this article compares Japanese law and English law, both of which have been developed for hundred years. In Japanese law, the legal doctrine which combines open justice and freedom of expression is worth considering for Taiwan. In English law, the judicial policy which promotes the live-stream coverage of courts based on open justice is also a good reference.