Citizen Judges Act (Act on Criminal Trials with the participation of Citizen Judge (Guomin Faguan)) Article 6
Where one of the following circumstances exists in a case that should undergo the trial with the the participation of citizen judges, the Court may, on its own initiative or upon the petition of one of the parties , a defense attorney, or an assistant of the accused, after hearing the opinions of the parties, the defense attorneys, or the assistants of the accused, rule the said case not to undergo the trial with the participation of citizen judges:1. Where there are facts that are sufficient for the Court to find that a trial with the participation of Citizen Judges may not be expected to be conducted impartially;2. Where there are circumstances that pose threats to the life, body, freedom, reputation, or property of a citizen judge, an alternate citizen judge, or their respective spouse, blood relative within the eighth degree of kinship, relative by marriage within the fifth degree of kinship, head of the house, or members of the house;3. Where the case concerned is complicated or requires highly specialized expert knowledge and it is difficult to conclude the trial within a short period of time;4. Where the accused has admitted to the facts that make up the offense charged and has been informed of a common trial procedure by the presiding judge, and based on the facts of the case concerned, the court deems that it is appropriate not to conduct a trial with the participation of citizen judges; or5. Where there are other facts showing that conducting a trial with the participation of citizen judges is obviously not appropriate.After a tribunal with citizen judges is formed, the Court should hear the opinions of the citizen judges and the alternate citizen judges before making the ruling pursuant to the preceding paragraph.A court should evaluate the public interest, the burden on the citizen judges and alternate citizen judges, and the well-protected litigation right of the parties when rendering a ruling pursuant to paragraph 1 above.A party may file an interlocutory appeal against the ruling made pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article. The trial proceedings shall be suspended pending the hearing of the interlocutory appeal. The court that hears the interlocutory appeal shall make its ruling immediately, and shall make its own ruling if it finds the interlocutory appeal meritorious.The litigation procedures conducted in accordance with legal procedures prior to the making of a ruling not to conduct a trial with the participation of citizen judges pursuant to the first paragraph of this article shall remain valid.
中文原文 國民法官法第6條
應行國民參與審判之案件,有下列情形之一者,法院得依職權或當事人、辯護人、輔佐人之聲請,於聽取當事人、辯護人、輔佐人之意見後,裁定不行國民參與審判:
一、有事實足認行國民參與審判有難期公正之虞。
二、對於國民法官、備位國民法官本人或其配偶、八親等內血親、五親等內姻親或家長、家屬之生命、身體、自由、名譽、財產有致生危害之虞。
三、案件情節繁雜或需高度專業知識,非經長久時日顯難完成審判。
四、被告就被訴事實為有罪之陳述,經審判長告知被告通常審判程序之旨,且依案件情節,認不行國民參與審判為適當。
五、其他有事實足認行國民參與審判顯不適當。
於國民法官法庭組成後,法院於前項裁定前並應聽取國民法官、備位國民法官之意見。
法院為第一項裁定,應審酌公共利益、國民法官與備位國民法官之負擔,及當事人訴訟權益之均衡維護。
第一項裁定,當事人得抗告。
抗告中,停止審判。
抗告法院應即時裁定,認為抗告有理由者,應自為裁定。
依第一項規定裁定不行國民參與審判之案件,裁定前已依法定程序所進行之訴訟程序,其效力不受影響。
一、有事實足認行國民參與審判有難期公正之虞。
二、對於國民法官、備位國民法官本人或其配偶、八親等內血親、五親等內姻親或家長、家屬之生命、身體、自由、名譽、財產有致生危害之虞。
三、案件情節繁雜或需高度專業知識,非經長久時日顯難完成審判。
四、被告就被訴事實為有罪之陳述,經審判長告知被告通常審判程序之旨,且依案件情節,認不行國民參與審判為適當。
五、其他有事實足認行國民參與審判顯不適當。
於國民法官法庭組成後,法院於前項裁定前並應聽取國民法官、備位國民法官之意見。
法院為第一項裁定,應審酌公共利益、國民法官與備位國民法官之負擔,及當事人訴訟權益之均衡維護。
第一項裁定,當事人得抗告。
抗告中,停止審判。
抗告法院應即時裁定,認為抗告有理由者,應自為裁定。
依第一項規定裁定不行國民參與審判之案件,裁定前已依法定程序所進行之訴訟程序,其效力不受影響。