The appeal in Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming’s (柯建銘) private lawsuit against former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on charges of leaking classified information and wiretapping was on Oct. 10 rejected by the Taiwan High Court.
The decision to uphold the previous not-guilty verdict might have stemmed from the court’s subjective views, but another reason was that the case was divided between two courts.
The accusation that Ma had leaked state secrets exploded onto the scene in September 2013. Ker launched a private lawsuit against Ma for disclosing classified information on Sept. 1, and added alleged libel on Sept. 11. This came under the Taipei District Court’s jurisdiction.
Other matters, such as Ma’s request that former prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) make two reports to former premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), were handled in a separate lawsuit lodged with the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office.
These closely connected allegations were clearly part of the same offense and should have been combined into a single suit.
According to the rule of competing jurisdiction set out in Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), the court at which a case is first pending must try the case.
The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office had combined other charges levied against Ma and transferred the case to a private court for trial.
However, it threw out the trial on the grounds that the facts of the cases were unrelated to each other, and the case was split into two different suits and tried at separate courts, making it more difficult to get at the truth.
Ker’s private lawsuit referenced Article 132 of the Criminal Code (刑法), which states that when state secrets relating to matters other than national defense are leaked by a public official, the leaker, rather than the recipient of the leaked information, should be prosecuted.
Since Huang initiated the report to Ma, Ma clearly was not guilty. This means that whether Huang provided further wiretapping and communication records when he was asked by Ma to visit him a second time is crucial to the question of whether Ma aided and abetted the disclosure of state secrets.
For prosecutors to prove that an offense occurred, there must be evidence of explicit instructions. However, the trial process revealed only 88 seconds of communication on the record, making it difficult for prosecutors to prove an intent to aid and abet the disclosure.
If Huang — when Ma asked him to visit a second time — delivered the same report as the first time, that already leaked information was no longer secret, and so no additional offense would have occurred.
If the two reports are essentially the same, but a connection cannot be established between them, it is not possible to evaluate Ma’s explanation to the premier and the Presidential Office secretary-general.
However, this event was handled by a different court, and based on the legal principle that a court can only try the charges in a lawsuit, the court could only judge Ma on the charges brought against him in the private suit.
This placed restrictions on the evidence that prosecutors could present, while Ma’s defense lawyers were able to easily rebut the prosecution’s case.
In this latest trial, the judges have at least upheld the twin legal principles of the presumption of innocence and evidence-based law.
However, what is most important in this kind of judgement is whether these principles, which make up the fundamental spirit of criminal justice, extend to all, and not just former presidents.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor in Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Edward Jones
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under