The Supreme Court rendered the 103-Tai-Shang-2457 Criminal Decision of July 17, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that although the Appellant's appeal was outright rejected in this Decision, still it is necessary to provide an explanation at the end of the Decision concerning the application of Article 7 of the newly amended Criminal Speedy Trial Law. It was pointed out that if no final judgment is made after eight years, the sentence can be reduced pursuant to the Criminal Speedy Trial Law only when the court believes as a result of its consideration that the defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated in material aspects and requires proper remedies.
Article 7 of the Criminal Speedy Trial Law, which was amended and promulgated on June 4, 2014 and came into effect in June 2014, provides: "Where no final judgment is made after eight years from the date the case is pending in the first instance, except when a not guilty verdict shall be rendered, the court may, ex officio or upon the request of the accused after considering the following circumstances, reduce the sentence at discretion if the court concludes that the defendant's right to a speedy trial is gravely violated so that remedies shall be provided: (1) whether the delay in litigation proceeding is caused by the defendant; (2) the balance between the complication of the case in terms of legality and facts and the delay in proceeding; and (3) other circumstances related to the speedy trial."」
According to the Decision, an interpretation of the meaning of this article indicates that whether a case meets the requirements for sentence reduction is still subject to the court's determination if a defendant's right to a speedy trial has indeed been violated in material aspects and requires property remedies. To wit, it is not true that the sentence of a case can certainly be reduced if no final judgment is rendered after eight years. In addition, in comparison with the legislative reasons for this article which state that if the litigation proceeding of a case is delayed for reasons attributable to the defendant, the disadvantages caused by such delay should not be assumed by the state. Thus, this circumstance is stipulated in Paragraph 1 of this article.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, although this case was pending for over years, still the delay was caused by the fact that the Appellant had not appeared in court after being summoned or being subject to apprehension and had been declared wanted until 2012 when he was apprehended. The delay in the litigation proceeding of this matter was attributable to the Appellant without violation of his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, the provision about sentence reduction in Article 7 of the Criminal Speedy Trial Law does not apply.