論交付審判制度之法官迴避制度──兼評最高法院刑事大法庭111年度台上大字第1924號裁定

Judge Disqualification for Setting for Trial Procedure−Review of Supreme Criminal Court Ruling No. 1924, 111th Session

最高法院刑事大法庭111年度台上大字第1924號裁定係在處理法官曾參與准予交付審判之裁定者，於嗣後同一案件之審判，是否應加以迴避之問題。本件裁定最終認定：法官曾參與准予交付審判之裁定者，於嗣後同一案件之審判，應類推適用刑事訴訟法第17條第7款規定自行迴避，不得執行職務。
我國交付審判制度於2002年修法通過，賦予法院一定之權限審查檢察官所為緩起訴、不起訴處分有無濫用權力之情事。在立法理由中亦有載明係參考德國與日本之立法例而為之立法。
然相較於日本刑事訴訟明文將曾參與交付審判作為法定迴避事由，我國法制上對此卻未有任何規定，也引發本件裁定。本文考量日本交付審判制度與我國制度之類似性，以日本法為比較對象，對於本件裁定及現有草案提出相關評析意見。

Through the Ruling No. 1924 in 2022, the Supreme Criminal Court in Taiwan made a decision regarding whether a judge who has previously decided the defendant be put on trial for the offense in a“setting for trial”proceeding, should recuse himself or herself from the subsequent trials for the case. The ruling ultimately held that that in such cases, Article 17(7) under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be applied analogically to recuse the judge in a setting for trial procedure previously from sitting in the following district trials for the same case.
In 2002, Legislative Yuan in Taiwan added in“setting for trial”system to the criminal procedure law. The system grants the court to examine whether a prosecutor has abused his/her power by deferring prosecution or not prosecuting. In the legislation explanation, it notes the system was created with reference to the trial proceeding systems in Germany and Japan.
However, in contrast to the Japanese criminal law, which expressly states that participation in a“setting for trial”is a legal ground for excusing a judge from the subsequent trials, there was no such a provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure in Taiwan, which led to this ruling, No. 1924, from Supreme Criminal Court. The review here provides comments on the ruling and the on-goling relevant legislation drafts.