「讓聲音被聽見」：司法詢問員制度如何促進弱勢者之司法近用權？──以性侵害犯罪防治法為中心之質性探討

'Let Their Voices Be Heard'': How Does the Judicial Intermediary System Promote Access to Justice for Vulnerable Groups?—A Qualitative Study Centered on the Prevention of Sexual Assault Act

為落實聯合國兒童權利公約與身心障礙者權利公約所揭示的司法保護權，各國紛紛建立司法中介人制度。我國亦於2015年「性侵害犯罪防治法」修正後，正式引入「司法詢問員」制度，旨在保障弱勢被害人（特別是兒童與身心障礙者）在司法程序中的近用權。本研究採質性研究法，透過訪談11名資深司法詢問員，深入探討該制度的實踐現況、操作流程、角色定位與面臨的困境。
研究發現，司法詢問員的工作流程涵蓋接案與前置準備、評估、詢問與介入。多數詢問員肯定該制度在促進弱勢被害人司法近用權方面的效益，但也觀察到區域間運用頻率與實踐方式的差異，以及工作流程未能統一、欠缺回饋與整合等問題。本研究歸納出制度面與實務面的困境，並提出具體建議。短程建議為：建構友善的詢問空間、合理化酬勞與補貼、發展詢問模式最佳實務、提升警檢與司法人員對此制度的認知與共識。長程展望則聚焦於：修法擴大適用對象、建立專職司法詢問員及推動三級分流制度、強化專業訓練與認證機制、建立標準化的通報轉介平台、建置統一的個案追蹤與回饋系統。

To implement the right to judicial protection set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, many countries have established intermediary mechanisms in judicial proceedings. Following the 2015 amendment to the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, Taiwan formally introduced the‘forensic interviewer’system, with the aim of safeguarding vulnerable victims’access to justice, particularly children and persons with disabilities, in judicial processes. Using qualitative methods, this study draws on in-depth interviews with 11 experienced judicial interviewers to examine the current operation of the system, including its practical implementation, procedural flow, role positioning, and the difficulties encountered.
The findings show that the work of judicial interviewers spans case intake and preparatory work, assessment, interviewing, and intervention. Most interviewers affirm the system’s effectiveness in enhancing vulnerable victims’access to justice, but they also observe regional disparities in how frequently and in what ways the system is used, as well as problems such as non-standardized procedures and a lack of feedback and coordination. The study identifies challenges at both the institutional and practical levels and proposes concrete recommendations. Short-term suggestions include: creating friendly and supportive interview environments, rationalizing remuneration and subsidies, developing best practices for interview models, and enhancing the awareness and consensus of police, prosecutors, and judicial personnel regarding the system. In the longer term, the study calls for: legislative amendments to expand the scope of eligible users, establishing full-time judicial interviewers and implementing a three-tier diversion mechanism, strengthening professional training and certification systems, building a standardized reporting and referral platform, and creating a unified case-tracking and feedback system.