非法证据排除程序再讨论

对于被告方提出的排除非法证据的申请,法院要进行专门的程序性裁判。作为一项基本原则,被告方一旦提出排除非法证据的申请,法院就要优先审查侦查行为的合法性问题,使程序性裁判具有优先于实体性裁判的效力。作为程序性裁判的两个重要部分,初步审查要求被告方承担初步的证明责任,具有过滤不必要的程序性裁判的功能;正式调查作为法院的程序性听证程序,具备基本的诉讼构造,偏重于职权主义的诉讼模式,并由公诉方承担证明侦查行为合法性的责任,且要达到最高的证明标准。对于一审法院就非法证据排除问题所作的决定,二审法院无法提供独立的司法救济,只能将其与实体问题一并作为是否撤销原判的依据。     

Rethinking the one-stop-shop mechanism: Legal certainty and legitimate expectation

This paper aims to contribute to the discussion concerning the one-stop-shop mechanism proposed in the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter “GDPR”). The choice of regulation as the instrument to legislate on data protection is already an unmistakable indication that unification and simplification (together with respect of data subjects' interests) shall be the guide for every legal discussion on the matter. The one-stop-shop mechanism (hereinafter “OSS”) clearly reflects the unification and simplification which the reform aims for. We believe that OSS is logically connected with the idea of one Data Protection Authority (hereinafter “DPA”) with an exclusive jurisdiction and that this can only mean that, given one controller, no other DPA can be a competent authority.² In other words, OSS implies a single and comprehensive competent authority of a given controller. In our analysis we argue that such architecture: a) works well with the “consistency mechanism”; b) provides guarantees to data subjects for a clear allocation of powers (legal certainty); and c) is not at odds with the complaint lodging procedure. Our position on fundamental questions is as follows. What is the perimeter of competence of the DPA in charge? We believe that it should have enforcement power on every issue of the controller, including issuing the fines. How to reconcile such dominant role of one DPA with the principle of co-operation among DPAs? We do not consider co-operation at odds with the rule that decisions are taken by just one single authority. Finally, we share some suggestions on how to make the jurisdiction allocation mechanism (the main establishment criterion) more straightforward.     

论民事简易程序系统之优化

在当前社会矛盾多发与司法资源有限的大背景下,我国民事简易程序总体呈现适用扩张化、运作失范化、价值功利化的趋势。从系统论的角度分析,原因是多方面的。从民事简易程序系统外部看,既有替代性纠纷解决机制虚弱的原因,也有诉讼程序体系内普通程序与简易程序价值博弈的原因;从系统内部看,既有立法与司法解释等规则层面的原因,也有机构与人员设置不配套等体制层面的原因,更有管理不到位、监管机制失灵等机制层面的原因。因此,优化民事简易程序系统,完善其价值与功能定位,仅从传统的立法论、解释论途径实现规则要素的优化是不够的,还得从其内外环境与结构入手,实现整体的优化。     

论强制医疗启动程序决定主体

强制医疗制度是国家医疗保健制度的有机组成部分,强制医疗有广义与狭义之分。狭义的强制医疗,如实施危害行为的精神病患者、甲类传染病患者等;广义的强制医疗,包括预防接种、指定医保单位就医等。强制医疗程序启动的决定主体必须是国家赋予相应权力的机关,其他任何单位不具有这样的权力,因而无权决定强制医疗程序启动。强制医疗主体的确定取决于强制医疗对象的危害程度、广度及时间等因素。     

我国行政指导程序的缺陷与完善

针对行政指导程序在立法和运作方面存在的诸多问题 ,提出了相应的对策和建议 ,以期完善我国的行政指导程序     

行政程序法基本原则研究

为了实现行政程序法的公正、效率价值和达到规范行政权的行使、保护相对人合法权益的立法目的,行政程序法应遵循程序法定原则、比例原则、信赖保护原则、行政公开原则等四项基本原则。该四项基本原则体现了行政程序法程序与实体并存的特点,并承担了价值和规则沟通桥梁的角色。     

刑事诉讼信息共建共享问题研究

对比司法信息化建设整体迅猛发展，刑事诉讼信息的共建共享明显滞后，公检法机关的信息化建设呈现信息孤岛现象。这造成司法资源的大量浪费，成为阻碍司法信息化发展的基础性难题。刑事诉讼信息互联互通协议是指公安、检察院、法院等办案机关就办案信息共享和传递问题达成共识。这种协议可以有效地打破刑事办案机关之间的数据壁垒，是推进刑事诉讼共建共享的现实路径。协议需要充分应对信息共建共享可能给以审判为中心的诉讼架构、卷宗移送模式、控辩平等关系、司法责任带来的负面效应，协调技术理性和司法规律的关系。同时，刑事诉讼信息共建共享在运行中需处理好以下具体问题：建议将政法委作为协议主责机关，制定长远的发展计划；进一步推动卷宗电子化；实行涉案财物统一管理；妥善解决信息保密问题。     

Study on the standard components of digital forensics laboratory

Recently, digital forensics has become increasingly important as it is used by investigation agencies, corporate, and private sector. To supplement the limitations of evidence capacity and be recognized in court, it is essential to establish an environment that ensures the integrity of the entire process ranging from collecting and analyzing to submitting digital evidence to court. In this study, common elements were extracted by comparing and analyzing ISO/IEC 17025, 27001 standards and Interpol and Council of Europe (CoE) guidelines to derive the necessary components for building a digital forensic laboratory. Subsequently, based on 21 digital forensic experts in the field, Delphi survey and verifications were conducted in three rounds. As a result, 40 components from seven areas were derived. The research results are based on the establishment, operation, management, and authentication of a digital forensics laboratory suitable for the domestic environment, with added credibility through collection of the opinions of 21 experts in the field of digital forensics in Korea. This study can be referred to in establishing digital forensic laboratories in national, public, and private digital forensic organizations as well as for employing as competency measurement criteria in courts to evaluate the reliability of the analysis results.     

刑事案件速裁程序局限性及其完善

在公正基础上制度化地解决有限的司法供给与膨胀的刑事法律需求之间的矛盾是现阶段刑事司法改革的必然要求,基于此,我国在《刑事诉讼法》简易程序的基础上对刑事案件速裁程序进行试点,但是试点中的一些问题阻碍了试点的预期效果的实现。本文分别从侦查机关、公诉机关、被告人、辩护人、审判机关角度分析阻碍速裁程序适用的原因,提出设立非法律因素上诉甄别程序,从而节约二审司法资源、确立司法权威;同时提出构建多层次的刑事司法程序,以改变现行刑事诉讼程序体系扁平的现状。     

强化程序意识规范鉴定行为——关于《司法鉴定程序通则》2016年的修改

由司法部制定和发布的旨在规范社会司法鉴定机构鉴定活动的《司法鉴定程序通则》于2001年发布并实施,经历了2007年的修订.在程序正义理念、三大诉讼法修改、鉴定理论成果等因素的影响之下,2016年再次修订.本次修订增加了一些规定:对被鉴定人隐私保护、咨询专家签名、鉴定文书补正、鉴定意见常规复核、鉴定人不得违规会见当事人、鉴定人出庭.修改了一些规定:鉴定委托、鉴定材料交接与管理、鉴定机构告知与说明义务、鉴定人回避、鉴定见证、鉴定文书发放.但也存在一些不足:见证与监护的混淆、删除对女性被鉴定人做妇科检查要求、删除对检材破坏与灭失风险告知义务.总的来看,新的规定亮点多,瑕不掩瑜,相信新的规定将进一步规范司法鉴定工作,使鉴定意见更好地服务于诉讼活动.