| 摘要註: |
「案件流程管理制度」，原是美國為解決二戰後國內日益增加的案件及積案延滯問題所發展出來的法院改革運動，後廣為同受積案問題所苦的各先進國家所採用。而各國於此的基本設計，均係將原本須由法官親自從事的事務，依是否為審判的核心、爭執性高低的標準予以區分為二，將不須勞由法官為之的審前準備工作等切割出來而交由輔助人力執行，並施以非審判的「替代性紛爭解決機制」解決當事人的紛爭，進而達到減少案件進入審判程序的目的，如此仍無法解決，即待案件在審前程序處理到接近適於審判的階段，才依各國所採的分案制度分由各法官或團隊加以審理、控管，使法官有限的時間與精力得集中在審判核心的聽審與判斷上，以增進審判的效率，而我國亦在採取各種作為後，也基於上情考量而亟思引入此制，後即擇定由高雄地院民事庭、桃園地院刑事庭為民、刑事案件流程管理的初期試辦法院。高雄地院在內外環境俱為艱困的情形下試辦本制迄今，經本研究針對研究當時的參與者，以當時的規劃作為，進行問卷調查及深度訪談結果發現，其成效就試辦前原定的三種評估標準中的「收案量調整至合理數量」、「裁判品質的提昇」兩項應均已順利達成，且此更是在未大量增加法官人數，而僅在改變分案模式及人員分工、調配的制度調整下，即達成該院久經爭取而不可得的「合理審判空間」的企盼，亦顯著減輕審判庭法官工作的負擔，其效益已無庸置疑。惟此試辦對原規劃最重要目標--「結案日數應能降低」乙項則為成果不明，甚或可能是未能達成，其它亦產生程序重複、資深及資淺法官配置的倒置、審查結果標準不一、審查庭法官工作負擔重等互為因果的不適性問題。 為使本制能發揮出更大的效用以求永續發展，本研究針對上開試辦的不適性等問題，乃在上策因現實而尚無法執行的情況下，而依生產、資訊、知識管理等企管方式提出對治方案：將審查庭所收的訴訟案件，先依是否具可模組化快速生產的性質加以區分為二，其中較不具複雜性的可類型化案件即輔以標準化、模組化、資訊系統化、知識庫的方式，將之交由司法事務官負責為大量客製化的生產，後再有系統地擷取、累積後端審判庭法官的審理智慧，以補充原標準化的內容而再為系統的循環進化；其他較複雜的案件則仍交由法官為手工式的藝術化流程生產，次再對此範圍內又具可類型化處理價值的案件，以資訊系統擷取處理知識而再整理形成新的類型案件，藉系統的持續運作而不斷擴大類型化案件的範圍，使得以大量快速生產的案件範圍不斷變大而至經濟規模的極限，以大量降低對法官的使用需求，而達到妥適解決各具連動關係的不適性問題的目標，進而成為未來司法改革所應朝向的司法資訊化、卷證數位化方向的起點與基礎。 Case flow management is a court reform developed by U.S. to resolve the increasingly worsened problem of case backlogs and delay after World war Ⅱ, and then widely adopted by those advanced countries which also suffered from the same problem. Basically, all these countries divide the things which judges handled into two categories by the standard that whether they are the core of the trail and how strong the conflicts involved. Then cutting out the pre-trial section, assigning to assistant personnel to deal with, installing alternative dispute resolution, in order to reduce the amount of case of entering trial process. Not until the pre-trail process proceeded to the stage ready for trial, the cases shall not assigned to individual judge or team to trial or manage by the case-assigning system adopted by each country, thus enabling the judges to concentrate their limited time and strength on case-hearing and discretion, the core of trial, to improve judicial efficiency. Our country ,after taking several actions, also ponders to import the case flow management system based on efficiency consideration, and elects Kaohsiung district court civil division and Tao-yuan district court criminal division as the early-stage experimental courts of civil and criminal case flow management. Kaohsiung district court has experimented this system until now, under inward and outward difficulties. This research finds, according to the outcome of the questionnaire investigation and in depth interview of the participants in view of the design at that time, two of the three set evaluation prongs, reasonable amount of case assigning and elevation of judgment quality, have been achieved. And the result is on the condition of not increasing the numbers of the judge, only systematically changing the case assigning model and personnel apportion, and then make the long-striven for hope of reasonable judging environment possible, apparently ease the workload of the trial court judges. It’s effect is without doubt. Nonetheless, the main goal of the experiment, that is to decrease the days of case pendency, is not clear or even not accomplished. In addition, it produces some other problems of inapplicability, such as repeated procedure, the reverse apportion of senior judge and junior judge, the inconsistency of review standard, as well as the review court judge’s heavy load, which are cause and effect of each other. To make the system exert greater effect and keep long-lasting development, concerning the above problems, this research proposes resolution project based on business management method, including production management, information management, and knowledge management, etc., as followed. To classify all the cases that the review court receives into two groups by their possibility of speedy production. Applying the means of standardization, modularizing, information systematization and knowledge repository to those cases that are uncomplicated and could be typified, and allocating to the Judicial Associate Officer to take charge of the mass customization production,then systematically making cyclical evolution by supplementing the standardized content with the accumulated wisdom of the back-end trial court judges. As to those complicated cased, they are still allotted to the judges to produce by manual artistry process. Yet in this category, regarding cases with potential of being typified, information system would be used again to define and shape new case type. To broaden the scope of typified cases through continual running of the system, so that the range of cases which could be speedily produced, constantly enlarges to the limit of economic scale, and the usage demand of judge reduces substantially, to achieve the goal of properly resolving the interactive problems of inapplicability, and further to lay a foundation for judicial informationization and legal document digitalization, which judicial reform should move towards in the future. |