萬國法律事務所

Taiwan’s Supreme Court recently held that if the confession of an accused is extracted through delayed interrogation, the confession cannot be admitted as evidence. The defendant, Mr. Ker, was accused of committing perjury. He was arrested by the police, but the prosecutor did not interrogate him until 1.5 hours after the arrest. The Supreme Court stated that this delayed interrogation constituted a violation of Mr. Ker’s right to due process. The case was reversed and remanded to the original trial court to ascertain what happened during the 1.5 hour delay, as Mr. Ker stated that the prosecutor threatened him with seven years imprisonment if he refused to confess.

The Court stated that delayed interrogations are used to threaten the accused, as police and prosecutors may use the delay in questioning to threaten or induce the accused to confess to the alleged crime.

The Court also explained its reason by quoting cases from the Supreme Court of the United States and applying article 93 of Taiwan’s Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that an accused or a suspect who is arrested with or without a warrant must be examined immediately. The court emphasized that the purpose of the immediate interrogation requirement is to determine whether to issue a detention order rather than to initiate an investigation.

Opponents have criticized this new rule. One prosecutor opined that the Court obviously misunderstood the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. Prosecutors worry that the immediate interrogation requirement may interfere with their investigation.