司法詢問紀錄之證據使用――以日本刑事訴訟法為借鏡

The Use of Forensic Interview as Evidence: A Comparative Study Based on Japanese Law

為強化對於性侵害犯罪被害者的保障，我國於2015年新增性侵害犯罪防治法第15條之1關於「司法詢問」之規定。其後，於2023年2月15日為提升司法對兒童及身心障礙者性侵害案件特殊性之偵查或審判專業，並維護弱勢證人之司法程序權益及證言憑信性，再次修正性侵害犯罪防治法第19條司法詢問之規範。此次修正，係參考英格蘭與威爾斯司法中介員作為監督者之立法模式，專業人士係從旁觀察、協助詢（訊）問之人，確保詢（訊）問程序所取得之證詞係透過適當之方式取得。
此外，對於經司法詢問制度而取得兒童等弱勢證人之供述，依性侵害犯罪防治法第26條第1項第3款規定，屬於傳聞例外具有證據能力。不過，對於經司法詢問制度而取得兒童等弱勢證人之偵訊過程的證詞，仍有證據法上之難題尚待解決：第一，在刑事審判程序中，符合性侵害犯罪防治法第26條第1項第3款傳聞例外規定時，應如何調和憲法第16條下刑事被告對證人有詰問權之保障？第二，應如何認定經司法詢問制度而取得兒童等弱勢證人之偵訊過程，具有性侵害犯罪防治法第26條第1項所謂「可信之特別情況」？於法條中未見明文。
基此，本文藉由比較法的取徑，探討日本2023年6月16日新增刑事訴訟法第321條之3規定，關於司法詢問結果之錄音錄影媒體之使用等議題，除瞭解日本法對於司法詢問制度之運作模式外，更爬梳傳聞例外與詰問權保障之相關議題，闡述日本實務及學界對此議題所提出之解決方案。透過對日本法制之比較分析，希冀透過彼邦的發展經驗，在制度操作上，提供我國未來司法詢問制度在解釋論上可行的參考方案。

To strengthen the protection of victims of sexual assault, Taiwan introduced Article 15-1 on“judicial interviews”in 2015. Later, on February 15, 2023, the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act was amended again to enhance the professionalism of investigations and trials in cases involving children and persons with disabilities, and to safeguard the procedural rights and credibility of vulnerable witnesses. This revision drew on the legislative model of England and Wales, in which registered intermediaries supervise the interview process. Professionals observe and assist the interviewer to ensure that the testimony is obtained in an appropriate manner.
In addition, under Article 26, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, statements obtained through the judicial interview system from vulnerable witnesses such as children are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, there remain unresolved evidentiary issues: First, in criminal trials, how should the hearsay exception under the Act be reconciled with the constitutional right of the accused under Article 16 to cross-examine witnesses? Second, how should the term“particular circumstances indicating trustworthiness”in Article 26, Paragraph 1 be interpreted when applied to statements from judicial interviews, given the absence of explicit legal definitions?
To explore these questions through comparative legal analysis, this article examines Japan’s new Article 321-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, added on June 16, 2023, which addresses the use of audio-visual recordings from judicial interviews. The study not only sheds light on how Japan implements the judicial interview system, but also analyzes how Japanese academia and legal practice address the tension between hearsay exceptions and the right to cross-examination. Through this comparative lens, the article aims to offer Taiwan potential interpretive approaches for future application and refinement of its judicial interview system.