兔寶寶法律事務所【高雄律師-楊岡儒律師的部落格】

2010.2.23    高雄律師-楊岡儒律師

--釋字654號解釋，於刑事訴訟程序之人權保障（受羈押被告之防禦權；The Right to Defend by the Accused in Custody），是一個非常重要的躍進，真的很歡喜看到大法官們做出如此先進的解釋。按對於受羈押之被告，於偵查或審判程序中，仍應恪守『無罪推定原則』，故關於其憲法上人權之保障仍應與一般人民相同，並不因其受到羈押之客觀狀態而改變，因此如任意以受羈押被告與辯護人接見時之監聽、錄音等資訊，作為偵查或審判上認定被告本案犯罪事實之證據，自屬於妨害被告防禦權之行使，進而牴觸憲法第十六條訴訟權之保障。

誠如大法官釋字654號理由書所述：『憲法第十六條規定人民有訴訟權，旨在確保人民有受公平審判之權利，依正當法律程序之要求，刑事被告應享有充分之防禦權，包括選任信賴之辯護人，俾受公平審判之保障。而刑事被告受其辯護人協助之權利，須使其獲得確實有效之保護，始能發揮防禦權之功能。從而，刑事被告與辯護人能在不受干預下充分自由溝通，為辯護人協助被告行使防禦權之重要內涵，應受憲法之保障。』

希望我國的訴訟程序，尤其是『刑事訴訟程序』，更能充足人權保障之面向，俾使減免不當冤屈或導致冤獄，並期盼檢調能恪守現代法治國家之科學蒐證辦案，以達勿枉勿縱及伸張正義，希望透過法院、檢察官及律師們之一起努力，充分落實憲法保障人權及維護人權之意旨。

『我衷心期盼，不要再有冤獄發生』，

『雖然這是個理想，可是希望我能夠盡力、努力的去避免』。

由於本解釋非常重要，所以本次節錄稍長，也請大家多多見諒喔。

兔寶寶律師謹筆   

2010.2.23 AM12.02

大法官會議解釋：釋字第654號解釋文(節錄)   

羈押法第二十三條第三項規定，律師接見受羈押被告時，有同條第二項應監視之適用，不問是否為達成羈押目的或維持押所秩序之必要，亦予以監聽、錄音，違反憲法第二十三條比例原則之規定，不符憲法保障訴訟權之意旨；同法第二十八條之規定，使依同法第二十三條第三項對受羈押被告與辯護人接見時監聽、錄音所獲得之資訊，得以作為偵查或審判上認定被告本案犯罪事實之證據，在此範圍內妨害被告防禦權之行使，牴觸憲法第十六條保障訴訟權之規定。前開羈押法第二十三條第三項及第二十八條規定，與本解釋意旨不符部分，均應自 中華民國九十八年五月一日 起失其效力。

看守所組織通則第一條第二項規定：「關於看守所羈押被告事項，並受所在地地方法院及其檢察署之督導。」屬機關內部之行政督導，非屬執行監聽、錄音之授權規定，不生是否違憲之問題。

J. Y. Interpretation No.654 (excerpts from the No.654)

Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Detention Act provides that when a counsel visits an accused in custody, the visitation shall be under surveillance pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the same Article. Subjecting visitation to surveillance and audio-recording without considering whether such surveillance achieve the purpose of detention or is necessary in maintaining the order of the detention facility violates the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the meaning and purpose of the Constitution to protect the right to litigate. Article 28 of the same Act provides that information obtained through surveillance and audio-recording during visitation in accordance with Article 23, Paragraph 3 may be admitted into evidence against the accused during investigation or on trial impinges upon the exercise of the right to defend by the accused and contradicts the right to litigate stipulated under Article 16 of the Constitution. The aforementioned Article 23, Paragraphs 3, and Article 28 of the Detention Act not in conformity with this judicial interpretation shall be ineffective as of May 1st, 2009.

Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the Organization Principles of Detention Facilities provides that: “Matters concerning the detention of an accused are subject to the supervision of the district court and its prosecutory office in the same venue.” This is an internal administrative supervision within an agency, not an authorization to carry out surveillance or audio-recording. Thus it does not incur any issue of constitutionality.

大法官釋字654號理由書(節錄) ：

憲法第十六條規定人民有訴訟權，旨在確保人民有受公平審判之權利，依正當法律程序之要求，刑事被告應享有充分之防禦權，包括選任信賴之辯護人，俾受公平審判之保障。而刑事被告受其辯護人協助之權利，須使其獲得確實有效之保護，始能發揮防禦權之功能。從而，刑事被告與辯護人能在不受干預下充分自由溝通，為辯護人協助被告行使防禦權之重要內涵，應受憲法之保障。上開自由溝通權利之行使雖非不得以法律加以限制，惟須合乎憲法第二十三條比例原則之規定，並應具體明確，方符憲法保障防禦權之本旨，而與憲法第十六條保障訴訟權之規定無違。

受羈押之被告，其人身自由及因人身自由受限制而影響之其他憲法所保障之權利，固然因而依法受有限制，惟於此範圍之外，基於無罪推定原則，受羈押被告之憲法權利之保障與一般人民所得享有者，原則上並無不同（本院釋字第六五三號解釋理由書參照）。受羈押被告因與外界隔離，唯有透過與辯護人接見時，在不受干預下充分自由溝通，始能確保其防禦權之行使。羈押法第二十三條第三項規定，律師接見受羈押被告時，亦有同條第二項應監視之適用。該項所稱「監視」，從羈押法及同法施行細則之規範意旨、整體法律制度體系觀察可知，並非僅止於看守所人員在場監看，尚包括監聽、記錄、錄音等行為在內。且於現行實務運作下，受羈押被告與辯護人接見時，看守所依據上開規定予以監聽、錄音。是上開規定使看守所得不問是否為達成羈押目的或維持押所秩序之必要，予以監聽、錄音，對受羈押被告與辯護人充分自由溝通權利予以限制，致妨礙其防禦權之行使，已逾越必要程度，違反憲法第二十三條比例原則之規定，不符憲法保障訴訟權之意旨。惟為維持押所秩序之必要，於受羈押被告與其辯護人接見時，如僅予以監看而不與聞，則與憲法保障訴訟權之意旨尚無不符。

No.654 Reasoning (excerpts)

Article 16 of the Constitution provides people with the right to litigate. Its purpose is to safeguard the people’s right to a fair trial so that a criminal defendant is entitled to full right to defend under due process of law, which includes, among other things, the selection of an entrusted counsel. The right to defend cannot be functional until a criminal defendant receives concrete and effective protection by exercising the right to counsel assistance. Consequently, the essence for counsel to assist the criminal defendant in exercising the right to defend lies in their free and unrestricted communications, and is subject to constitutional protection. While exercising the aforementioned right of free and unrestricted communications may, under certain circumstances, be limited by law, such limitations must comply with the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution and must be concrete and precise in accordance with the meaning and purpose of the Constitution so that it is not contradictory to Article 16 of the Constitution.

While the physical freedom or other constitutional rights of a detainee are limited by law because of the detention, under the doctrine of presumption of innocence, the detainee nevertheless enjoys, in principle, other constitutional rights outside of the scope [of such limitations] as an ordinary person (see J. Y. Interpretation No. 653). Isolated from outside world, the only means for a detainee to engage in free and unrestricted communications so as to safeguard the right to defend is through counsel’s visitation. Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Detention Act provides that Paragraph 2 on “under surveillance” shall apply in the event the counsel visits a detainee. Taking into consideration the meaning and purpose of Detention Act and its Implementation Rules as well as the totality of the legal system, the term “surveillance” entails not only on-site monitoring by the detention facility personnel, but also eavesdropping, recordation and audio-recording, among other acts. Under current practices, counsel visitation is routinely monitored and recorded pursuant to the aforementioned statutory provisions. These provisions, which allow a detention facility to conduct surveillance and audio-recording without considering whether it achieves the purpose of detention or is necessary in maintaining the order of the detention facility, has hindered the exercise of the right to defend and exceeded the scope of necessity, thus violates the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the meaning and purpose of the Constitution to protect the right to litigate. However, for the need to maintain order in the detention facility, the mere visual monitoring without probing into the contents does not contradict the meaning and purpose of the Constitution concerning the protection of the right to litigate.