| 篇名 |
判決一致性作為再審事由──簡評112年憲判字第6號判決 |
| 並列篇名 |
Consistency as a Ground for Retrial－A Critique of 112-Hsien-Pan-6 (2003) |
| 作者 |
李榮耕 |
| 中文摘要 |
在112年憲判字第6號判決，大法官認為普通法院及軍事法院就同一犯罪事實的共同正犯作成無罪及有罪的確定判決時，受有罪確定判決的軍人應有救濟途徑。現行法律沒有給予受有罪確定判決的軍人救濟機會，侵害其受憲法上的訴訟權，也違反了正當法律程序原則公平審判。這一個判決進一步判定，聲請人得以普通法院就其他共同正犯的無罪確定判決，作為獨立且直接開始再審的事由，就軍事法院的有罪確定判決，向普通法院聲請再審。從理論及比較法制可以知道，判決不一致的原因很多，可能是基於重要的憲法原則。再者，這一個判決賦予聲請人的救濟機會，恐怕也難以解消「與事物本質不符，而非一般國民法感情所能接受」或「引起一般人合理懷疑之處」的疑慮。現行法制就此也有救濟途徑。大法官保障人民權利的用心良苦，但判決及其說理或可商榷再三。 |
| 英文摘要 |
“In 112-Hsien-Pan 6, the justices ruled that a defendant convicted in a military trial has the right to seek judicial remedy when civilian and military courts issue inconsistent judgments. The current provisions infringe upon the rights of convicted military defendants to pursue legal action, violating due process and fair trial principles as they do not afford them the right to seek judicial remedy. The petitioner may request a retrial in a civilian court on the grounds that the civilian court acquitted the co-offender. From a theoretical and comparative standpoint, there are numerous factors contributing to inconsistent judgments, some of which are constitutional. Furthermore, the remedy provided by the judgment may fail to alleviate doubts regarding‘contravention of the general public’s sense of justice’or‘reasonable concerns.’The petitioner has, in fact, already availed themselves of judicial remedy for the conviction. While the conscientious efforts of the justices to safeguard people’s rights are commendable, further scrutiny may be warranted regarding the judgments and their reasoning.” |
| 起訖頁 |
21-36 |
| 關鍵詞 |
判決一致、判決歧異、訴訟權、再審、正當法律程序、公平審判、The Rule of Consistency、Inconsistency of Judgemens、Right of Instituting Legal Proceedings、Retrial、Due Process of Law、Fair Trial |
| 刊名 |
月旦法學雜誌 |
| 出版單位 |
元照出版公司
|
| 期數 |
202408 (351期) |
| DOI |
10.53106/1025593135102 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
