The Council of Grand Justices determined yesterday the Anti-Hooligan Law (
The Anti-Hooligan Law, created amidst a large-scale crackdown on gangster rings during the martial law era, has long been in dispute for its departure from international standards of due process.
The law grants police and courts enormous discretion, and suspected hoodlums are not given the rights that ordinary defendants receive during the criminal procedure of arrest, detention and trial.
Without strict standards for due process, there have been cases where the law, which allows the use of secret witnesses, has been used by the police against innocent citizens.
In a 1995 decision, the council had ordered changes to disputed procedures of arrest and trial under the law. In its second review yesterday, the council decided that personal liberty is infringed under the law's detention procedure.
The council's ruling yesterday was in response to an appeal by three Kaohsiung men who had been arbitrarily detained for over 160 days from June 25, 1997, after secret witnesses testified that they were hoodlums.
Although they were given no reason for their detention by the court, the three men were released only after they were acquitted of the charges.
In its opinion, the Council of Grand Justices noted that for the sake of social order, the law grants the court greater discretion in determining the length of detentions. It maintained, however, that the "principle of transparency and accuracy" must be applied in any legal restrictions on civil rights, and the Anti-Hooligan Law is no exception.
* The act was created to help police crack down on gangster rings during the martial law era.
* Under the law a suspected hoodlum can be detained for up to two months by a district court and even longer if an appeal is filed.
* The law also allows for the testimony of secret witnesses to be used against suspected hoodlums.
Source: Taipei Times
The council said the Anti-Hooligan Law fails to specify under what criteria the detention of a suspected hoodlum can be ordered, which is a violation of the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
The council declared that the authorities concerned should make changes within one year's time, or the law will become null and void after that time.
Under the law's procedure, a suspected hoodlum can be detained for up to two months by the district court and for even longer when an appeal is filed. The courts are not required to state their reasons for ordering the detention or an extension of it.
Among other things, the law was challenged for its secret witness system, which allowed police to conduct "sweeps" of suspected "hoodlums" and to use the testimony of unidentified informants in detaining the suspects.
Before amendments in 1995, lawyers for alleged hoodlums were not permitted to cross-examine informants. Although the testimony of the secret witnesses was included under the criminal statutes for perjury, critics claimed that the detainees often lacked the means to prove perjury.
The Legislative Yuan passed new legislation in 1997 requiring all witnesses to testify openly but also providing procedures for their subsequent protection, "in exceptional cases."
RSS