TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The Taipei District Court on Tuesday rejected former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) request to live-broadcast the oral argument and sentencing in the Core Pacific graft case but ruled that a full recording will be made public no later than five days after judgment.
The court said the case involves public interest and that releasing the full oral arguments will not adversely affect national security or the individuals involved, per Tai Sounds. To ensure a complete record, the broadcast will include all participants, not only Ko.
Responding to Ko’s claim that the Judicial Yuan’s rules violate the spirit of the law, the court said the restrictions are designed to prevent irreversible harm to trial participants and protect the fairness of proceedings. That is why the Judicial Yuan requires broadcasts to be released only after a judgment has been handed down, the court explained.
The court added that the five-day window strikes a balance among public interest, trial fairness and the rights of all parties.
Taiwan People’s Party Spokesperson Chang Tong (張彤) criticized the ruling, saying the public wants live broadcasts, not “documentaries,” per Liberty Times. Chang argued that the Judicial Yuan has hollowed out the Legislature’s intent when implementing the new amendments.
TPP Legislator Chang Chi-kai (張啓楷) also condemned the decision, noting that the high-profile case of Su Chien-ho (蘇建和), who was accused and later cleared of murder, was broadcast live 25 years ago, per CTWant. He argued that even though Taiwan now has explicit legal grounds for live courtroom broadcasts, the system has reverted to releasing taped footage.
Ko is accused of granting favorable floor-area ratios to a development project by the Core Pacific Group. The TPP says the prosecution is politically motivated and has pushed for live courtroom broadcasts to ensure transparency.
During the amendment process, legal groups raised concerns about live broadcasting, warning that it could cause irreparable harm to trial participants and compromise both privacy rights and the fairness of proceedings.
