國民法官審判中之基本權干預——以羈押處分為討論核心

Intervention with Fundamental Rights in Trials by Citizen Judges: Detention as the Focus

「國民法官法」於2023年1月1日開始施行，其確立特定刑事案件，將由國民法官與職業法官共同參與審判並進行終局評議之人民參與審判法制。然而，個案中「訴訟程序之裁定」，如羈押處分，是否應由國民法官與職業法官共同討論並審查，抑或專由職業法官合議決定，國民法官法對此並未有明確指引。此外，羈押審查作為專業法學事項，對不諳法學之國民法官而言，審判中短暫時間內即須理解構成發動羈押之要件，並慮及裁定後對被告所生之影響，無疑地均須高度仰賴職業法官之說明，惟其心證是否可能受有影響或所需裁定時間將大幅提高，從而有牴觸憲法第16條訴訟權保障下所要求迅速審判誡命之虞，均有值得討論之處。因此，本文除整理我國學說實務針對上述爭議問題之論述外，同時以德國法院組織法中有關「參審法院」之規定作為比較對象，透過借鏡他山之石不同觀點，提供我國法上解釋或未來修法另一面向之思考。

The implementation of the Citizen Judges Act on January 1, 2023, is a significant step towards increasing public participation in the criminal justice system in Taiwan. However, there are still some concerns about the role of citizen judges in certain procedural decisions, such as detention orders. Detention review is a complex legal process that requires a deep understanding of the relevant legal concepts and the defendant's circumstances. This decision has a significant impact on the defendant's rights and freedoms and must be made promptly to ensure the fairness and credibility of the trial.In the absence of clear guidance in the Citizen Judges Act on the role of citizen judges in detention review, there is a risk that citizen judges who lack legal expertise may struggle to make informed decisions within the required timeframe. This could potentially undermine the credibility of the decision or violate the constitutional requirement for prompt adjudication.
To address these concerns, legal scholars and practitioners in Taiwan have engaged in extensive discussions on the appropriate role of citizen judges in detention review. Some suggest that professional judges should take the lead in making detention decisions, with citizen judges providing input and advice as needed. Others argue that citizen judges should play a more active role in the decision-making process, with professional judges providing guidance and explanation as required. To provide a comparative reference for these discussions, the German Court Organization Act, which provides for the participation of lay assessors in criminal trials, has been considered. In this system, lay assessors work alongside professional judges to make decisions on both guilt and punishment. However, in cases where detention is at issue, professional judges take the lead in making the decision, with lay assessors providing input and advice. This system may offer useful insights into the appropriate role of citizen judges in detention review in Taiwan. By allowing professional judges to take the lead in making detention decisions, while still providing citizen judges with the opportunity to offer input and advice, the system could ensure that decisions are made promptly and fairly, while also ensuring the credibility of the process.
In conclusion, the Citizen Judges Act represents an important step towards increasing public participation in the criminal justice system in Taiwan. However, the role of citizen judges in detention review remains a controversial issue that requires careful consideration and debate. By drawing on both domestic and international legal systems, Taiwan can develop a framework that upholds the principles of fairness, credibility, and prompt adjudication while meeting the needs of its unique legal and social context.