林鈺雄2006-07-252018-07-052006-07-252018-07-052004http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/12877民國九十二年九月一日起實施的我國刑事訴訟法證據章草案，增訂被告留置 鑑定之相關規定（修正條文第二百零三條、第二百零三條之一、第二百零三條之 二、第二百零三條之三、第二百零三條之四）。立法理由說明提到，為發見真實 或正確適用法律，實務上時有將被告送鑑定之必要，惟如將被告送入醫院或其他 適當處所鑑定，影響人身自由，自應依令狀執行，以保障其人權，爰明定鑑定留 置應用鑑定留置票，並規定留置期間之限制、縮短及延長，鑑定留置之執行、處 所變更及留置期間視為羈押日數等相關配套規定。 鑑定留置制度亦見於其他立法例。以德國法為例，其刑事訴訟法早有明文的 要件及程序規定（§81 StPO ）：為了鑑定被告心神狀態之必要，法院得於聽取鑑 定人及辯護人之意見後，命被告入公立精神醫院受鑑定觀察。此外，該法亦明文 規定，法院僅得對重大犯罪嫌疑之被告為上開之鑑定留置處分，並且，如果該處 分相較於案件之重要性及預期之科刑或保安處分不具相當性關係者，便不得為 之。對於上開鑑定留置之裁定，被告得即時提出抗告，該抗告並且具有延緩執行 之效力。 我國刑事訴訟法上開草案雖然參考外國立法例而定，以法官為簽發鑑定留置 票之機關，但諸多可能產生的實務問題，並未見諸立法明文，亟待解決。例如， 鑑定留置仍屬干預基本權之行為，但發動門檻為何？被告犯罪嫌疑應至何等程 度，始得為之？此外，關於鑑定留置之裁定，被告雖得抗告（刑事訴訟法第四０ 四條第二款），但因鑑定留置依照草案規劃僅為七日以下期間，而抗告依照現行 法又無停止執行之效力（刑事訴訟法第四０ 四條第二款），因此，幾乎可以斷言 抗告來不及阻斷執行，對被告並無實益可言。立法或司法實務有無調整之必要？ 諸如此類實務問題，有待一一發掘及解決。 基於「儘早研究爭議問題並且提早規劃解決方案」之認識，本研究計畫以本 次鑑定留置修法後衍生問題及其解決對策為主要研究範圍，輔以德國鑑定留置為 比較對象，徹底檢討本次立法的利弊得失，並擬提出具體的操作基準及相關措 施，以供未來學說闡釋及實務運作的參考。（請參閱貳、五、報告內容之結論與 建議及伍、附錄：報告論文）。A group of amendments is among the revised articles in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP hereafter) which is pending in the Legislative Yuan before being passed to become new laws. (Revised Articles CCP 203, 203-1, 203-2, 203-3, 203-4). According to the background interpretation to the amendment draft, to serve the end of sound fact-findings and decent law-application, it exists the need of forcing the accused to a hospital or other institutes to take a mental evaluation check-up. Since such measure will unevitably limit the physical freedom of the accused so ordered, a core article of amendments provides that a warrant has to be issued by the court to permit such tentative detension. The amended provisions also cover the issues such as duration of the detention, the methode of execution, and the place of detention for such purpose. Similar regulations can be found in foreign laws. German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) is an example, which can be taken as a comparison basis. In need of evaluation the mental state of the accused, a German Court can exercise its authority to order the accused enter a public hospital for a mental examination, with a prior consent of the accused or his/her legal counsel. In Germany, such forced measure can only be executed against the accused with grave suspicion. Like in other similar contexts, a principle of proportion applies when the court is to consider adopting the measures. The accused imposed of the disadvantage is entitled to immediate appealing. An appeal like this will hinder or postpone the execution of the court order of tentative detention. While taking an foreign example, Taiwanese amendment proposals neverthless created several confusing issues for the courts and lawyers. For instance, what is the starting point for launching this sort of forced measures, or, amounting to what extent of suspicision with the accused will the measure of this kind is warranted? Another exmple, although the accused suffering from such decision has a right to appeal, the appeal action itself can exert no effect to halt the execution of the detention decision. The accused will not thus benefit from the appeal action. Hence, some kinds of adjustment with legislation process or judicial administration is evidently necesary. Based on an “early diagnosis, early cure” priciple, this rearch project is focusing on the tentative detention amendments, including the various issues originating from the amendments. While comparising with the provisions covering this issue in German CCP, the author is trying to present a solution proposal in terms of theorical interpretatation as well as in practical operation.application/pdf101877 bytesapplication/pdfzh-TW國立臺灣大學法律學系暨研究所鑑定留置羈押Tentative Detention for Mental EvaluationDetention[SDGs]SDG16reporthttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/12877/1/922414H002031.pdf