Newsletter
WITNESS STATEMENT MADE UNDER THREAT NOT ADMISSI-BLE
In a 2004 judgment, the Supreme Court held that a statement obtained by a public prosecutor's using "threatening language" while interviewing a witness was not admissible in evidence. However, it is worth noting that the "threat" re-ferred to in this case was the prosecutor's warn-ing, when telling the witness not to talk nonsense or make inconsistent statements, that the witness could be prosecuted for perjury.
In its reasons, the Court stated that under Article 156 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Pro-cedure, an accused person's confession is ad-missible in evidence only if it was not made under circumstances of violence, intimidation, inducement, deception, interviewing while ex-cessively fatigued, unlawful detention, or by other improper means, and if it is consistent with the facts. By the same doctrine of voluntary tes-timony, the interviewing of witnesses must be undertaken with a sincere attitude, and must not involve violence, intimidation, inducements, deception, interviewing while excessively fa-tigued, or other improper means. Otherwise the statements obtained will not be admissible in evidence, and cannot be made the basis for a court judgment.
This judgment seems likely to have a substantial impact on current practice in Taiwan's criminal justice system. Article 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that before a wit-ness signs a declaration confirming the truth of his testimony (equivalent to an oath in An-glo-American procedure), the judge or public prosecutor must explain to him the duty to sign such a declaration, and the penalties for making false statements. In accordance with the Court's opinion, this must be done with a "sincere atti-tude," while avoiding "threatening language." This may present a considerable challenge for judges and prosecutors to constantly watch their manners.