(EDITORIAL from the Korea Herald on March 12)

Judges' independence

The Supreme Court has concluded an internal investigation into alleged
influence-peddling by one of its justices and may announce its findings as early
as today. Supreme Court Justice Shin Young-chul is accused of sending e-mails to
junior judges between October and November of last year, when he served as the
head of the Seoul Central District Court. In the e-mails marked "confidential,"
Shin asked the judges to speed up the trials of those arrested for illegal
demonstrations during the months-long protests against U.S. beef imports. Outdoor
rallies after sunset are illegal, and police arrested more than 1,000 people on
charges of violating that law. In October, a judge petitioned the Constitutional
Court to review the legitimacy of the law banning outdoor demonstrations after
sunset. Following the petition filing, another judge suspended a trial and
allowed two defendants to be released on bail. Generally, when a case is referred
to the Constitutional Court, the case and other related cases are postponed until
the Constitutional Court makes a ruling. Shin allegedly sent an e-mail a few days
after the petition was filed, asking the judges to proceed with the trials
regardless of the petition.
During the Supreme Court investigation, some of the junior judges said that they
felt they were being pressured when they read the e-mails. Shin, on the other
hand, said he was merely advising the judges to conduct their trials on the basis
of the current law. The Supreme Court is to determine whether Shin's behavior
constitutes proper judicial administration or an attempt to intervene in legal
proceedings. So far, Shin's actions appear to have been an attempt to intervene
in trials. A recent media report that Shin summoned the judge who petitioned the
Constitutional Court for meetings on two occasions lend credence to that view.
The judge who filed the petition said he felt undue pressure. Supreme Court Chief
Justice Lee Yong-hoon said that if the judges felt pressured by the e-mails,
"they cannot say they are judges."
However, this is unfair to the judges whose performances are evaluated by the
chief justice. What Shin claims was his intention in sending the e-mails is
largely irrelevant. What is important is how the judges receiving the e-mails
felt, particularly because Shin had authority over them. If they felt that they
were being pressured, then Shin's e-mails should be seen as an attempt to
intervene. Even if the investigators find that Shin's actions constitute proper
judicial administration, there is no question that he acted inappropriately. As
such, Shin should offer to resign no matter what the outcome of the
investigation. The judiciary must also review and define the boundaries between
judicial administration and intervention in trials. The country's judiciary has
achieved independence from external factors. Yet, as the present case
illustrates, individual judges are still not completely independent from powers
within the judiciary. The judiciary must remedy the situation if the people are
to trust it to execute the law in a fair and just manner.
(END)