Formosa Plastics: often compare dto authoritarian regimes, covering up problems, paying researchers, not compensating workers, punishing workers for speaking up....Read more
Yunlin District Court, March 22, 2016. The third court hearing of Chang et al. (Taisi residents) v. five representative companies of the Sixth Naphtha petrochemical zone.
A panoramic view of the court: the defendants’ lawyers on the left and the plaintiffs’ lawyers on the right. In the first row of the audience were three plaintiffs who accompanied Brother Wu (a leader in organizing the plaintiffs’ group) and documentary filmmaker Hao-chung Chan (author of Shrouding the Clouds, about air pollution from the Sixth Naphtha cracker). The last row was occupied by FPG employees.
2016年3月22日，雲林地方法院第三次開庭。台西鄉以張姓居民原告為首，對六輕石化工業區的五家公司代表提出告訴。
法庭全景，左為被告律師，右為原告律師。旁聽席第一排為三位原告，他們和吳日暉大哥一起來的。吳大哥在籌組原告團的過程中扮演相當重要的角色。另外，《在雲裡》的導演詹皓中也來了，這是一部透過「雲」來探討六輕造成空汙下的雲林之紀錄片。而最後一排坐滿了台塑員工。
Plaintiff attorney Aslan Chia-cheng Hung.
洪嘉呈原告律師。
Defendant attorney Chen during one of her aggressive criticisms of plaintiffs’ lawyers arguments on the causal link between air pollutants and the plaintiffs’ cancers.
被告陳律師正批評原告律師關於空氣污染物與原告癌症之間的因果關係。
A defendant lawyer in plain-clothes taking notes and looking tired of long discussions on causality.
一位穿著便服的被告律師正寫著筆記，顯然對因果關係的討論感到有些厭倦。
Yunlin District Court, March 22, 2016.
Defendant attorney Tsai feels very much at home in the courtroom, frequently leaving the seat assigned to the defendants to sit in the middle of the courtroom at the desk normally reserved for experts and the plaintiffs, translating to the judge in “plain Chinese”, i.e., oversimplifying and misleading the problem of causality between air pollutants and cancers.
被告蔡律師感覺在法庭中相當自在，經常離開分配給被告的座位，然後改坐到法庭中間，通常那是保留給專家與原告的席次。他還會向法官表示「我用白話跟你講」，比如，這其中問題，是過分簡化、誤導了空氣污染物與癌症之間的因果關係，等等。
The judge, who tends to prefer this language, gives the defendants much fewer opportunities to have their say.
法官則傾向偏好這種語言，給被告人發言的機會則少了很多。
The head of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Att. Thomas Chan. After this hearing, in May 2016, he was invited to stand as the Deputy Minister of the Environmental Protection Administration (Taiwan EPA), a position he left in September 2018. In the meantime, he could not attend anymore court hearings and his younger colleagues had a harder time with the judge.
原告律師團團長，詹順貴律師。這次的法院庭審結束後，2016年5月他受邀參選台灣環保署副署長，而於2018年9月離職。在此期間，他不得參與法院庭審，使他的年輕同事後續面對法官時變得更加艱難。
Yunlin District Court, Friday 13, January 2017.
The fifth court hearing was a black Friday for the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge wanted the discussion to proceed from the first plaintiff and the first defendant, and so on, one after another. Although it is a strange way to approach problems of causality in a case of industrial pollution, the defendants’ lawyers were very happy with that.
Furthermore, the judge rejected the plaintiffs’ request to have Prof. Chan Chang Chuan (NTU College of Public Health) testify as an expert at the bar, despite the fact he had conducted a lot of excellent epidemiological research on the case. For the sake of neutrality, the judge prefered to ask two other experts, although they had not conducted research on the case.
2017年1月13日，星期五，於雲林地方法院第五次開庭。
對原告律師們來說，是個黑色星期五。法官希望從第一原告和第一被告開始討論，然後再一個又一個地以此類推，以這種怪異的方式處理工業污染案件中的因果關係問題，但是被告律師卻對此感到非常滿意。
再者，法官駁回了原告要求台大公衛學院詹長權教授作為專家出庭作證。儘管事實上，詹教授已發表大量且出色的流行病學相關研究。為保持中立，法官傾向詢問另兩名專家，即使他們尚未對此案有所研究成果。
Plaintiffs’ lawyer Shu-fang Huang discussed the huge amount of surveillance data on air pollution, which were falsified by Formosa Plastics, breaching the Air Pollution Control Act. This made the headlines the previous day, but the judge rejected the problem: “I don’t care about newspapers!”
原告黃淑芳律師提出了大量關於空氣污染的監視數據，並稱這些數據其實是台塑偽造的，這違反了《空氣污染防制法》。 儘管這是前一天的頭條新聞，但法官拒絕正視這個問題，還說：「我才不在乎什麼報紙！」
Yunlin District Court, September 2017, the sixth court hearing.
Ms. Wu, the wife of a plaintiff with cancer, was sitting behind me; as we were waiting for the hearing to start, I asked her about her husband’s health; she started crying.
And soon after the discussion began, defendant Att. Tsai went to sit in the middle of the courtroom to argue that the research by Chan C.C. was “only one point of view”.
2017年9月，於雲林地方法院第六次開庭。
坐在我後面的是吳女士，她是一位患有癌症的原告的妻子。當我們在等待法院庭審開始時，我問起她丈夫的健康狀況，她便忍不住開始哭泣。
才討論開始後不久，被告蔡律師再次來到法庭中間，爭論詹長權教授的研究「只有一種觀點」。
Defendant lawyer Att. Chen further underlines that his research is “too abstract”, lacking concrete facts.
被告陳律師進一步強調，詹教授的研究「太過於抽象」，並不等於具體事實。
The judge is so ignorant of what epidemiological evidence is—and so little interested in learning about it—that the defendants can easily play their misleading game.
法官對流行病學的證據是什麼幾乎一無所知，也沒什麼興趣去了解它，以至於被告藉機玩他們誤導的遊戲。
When it’s time for the plaintiffs’ lawyers to speak, he starts sleeping!
當原告律師發言時，他開始睡覺了！
Yunlin District Court, 10 0ctober 2019.
Today the judge grew tired of the long speeches by the defendants and asks them to give him a simple definition of what they mean by "danger" 危險.
2019年10月10日，於雲林地方法院。
今天，法官對於被告的冗長報告感到有些厭倦，並要求他們給他一個簡單的定義，以表示何謂「危險」的意義。
I tried to adopt the judge’s position to imagine how he might appreciate defendant Att. Tsai’s translations of the debate in “plain Chinese”, the other lawyers and the audience behind: a few plaintiffs and environmental groups in the first row, including a foreigner (me), and FPG employees in the third row.
我試圖採納法官的立場，想像他將如何嘗試認同被告蔡律師用「白話」辯論，其他律師和聽眾則於後座：後座第一排為幾位原告和環保團體，包括外國人（我），以及後座第三排坐著幾位台塑員工。
For the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the judge requests they provide “simple standards” to make a decision on causality.
對於原告的律師，法官要求他們提供「簡易的標準」以決定因果關係。
On the left, defendant Att. Chang argues that the plaintiffs must prove a reasonable probability that “substances” from the petrochemical zone cause cancer (the defendants do not use the words “air pollutants”). At least now, they do not argue that the plaintiffs should prove which substance from which company chimney is causing the plaintiffs’ cancers, as they asked for during the first hearings.
左邊為被告張律師，他辯稱原告必須證明石化工業區排出的「物質」有致癌的可能性（被告不使用「空氣污染物」一詞）。至少現在，他們不主張原告應證明：是由哪家公司煙囪排放的物質而導致原告罹癌，這是他們在第一次法院庭審中要求過的。
Yunlin District Court, 10 0ctober 2019.
The judge seems to spend little time reading the documents provided by the lawyers. And most of the time, he adopts a rather passive attitude during the court hearings. Instead of inviting the plaintiffs into the court to explain their motivations for sueing the companies, and instead of organizing a contradictory debate between experts suggested by the two sides, he seems obsessed to request the two sides agree on one expert who could decide if there is a causality between the cancers and what is emitted in the industrial zone. Then he gets angry about the debate having no end. At the previous hearing, he was also angry because he thought environmental groups attending the hearings had made audio recordings and shared some of his weird behaviors with the defendants’ lawyers.
2019年10月10日，於雲林地方法院。
法官似乎沒什麼事先閱讀律師提供的文件。而且多數時候，他在法院庭審上都採取了相當被動的態度。比如，他沒有邀請原告向法院解釋他們起訴公司的動機，也沒有針對雙方專家之間相互矛盾的辯論做進一步的處理，反而執意要求雙方專家的辯論中—癌症之間是否存在因果關係，還是工業區中排放化學物質的問題—擇一來達成協議。然後，他為無休止的辯論感到生氣。在上一次的法院庭審上，他因環境團體錄音，洩露了他與被告律師的某些怪異互動而感到憤怒。
Yunlin District Court, 10 0ctober 2019.
For once, the judge made a sound request of the lawyers: to translate those complex and very technical matters into plain Chinese. Defendant Att. Tsai has been eager to meet this demand, punctuating his explanation in Mandarin with some Taiwanese language. Actually, many plaintiffs do not really understand Mandarin, so it would be helpful for them if the hearings could be conducted in Taiwanese. But anyhow, given the little attention the judge gives them, these hearings are obviously not framed for them.
2019年10月10日，於雲林地方法院。
至少，法官曾經對律師提出了一個合理要求：將那些複雜且技術性很強的問題翻成白話中文。被告蔡律師一直渴望嘗試這種方式，並加入不少台語來解釋。事實上，其實許多原告並不真正懂中文，因為他們使用台語。因此，若法院庭審以台語進行的話，對這些原告會有幫助。 但無論如何，由於法官注意道他們，這些法院庭審顯然不是為他們所安排的。
Tainan High Court, 23 February 2021.
Part of the lawsuit has recently started in the high court. The first hearing provided a sharp contrast with the atmosphere in the district court. The judge begins with inviting the plaintiffs’ lawyers to sum up their statement of appeal and she listens carefully to it. The precision of her questions and propositions to both sides suggest that she had carefully read the documents submitted to the court by the lawyers.
2021年2月23日，台南高等法院。
高等法院最近已開始審理部分的訴訟案。 第一次法院庭審與地方法院的氣氛有著鮮明對比。法官首先邀請原告律師總結他們的上訴聲明，途中，她仔細地聆聽。從她對雙方問題和主張的準確性看來，她已仔細閱讀了律師們提交給法院的文件。
And here is Att. Tsai who comes again in the middle of the room for his show. Despite the rules that impose the wearing of masks in prevention of the Covid-19, he just takes it off. His excuse is that it’s not convenient for speaking. But after five minutes, the judge finally asks him to put the mask back on.
被告蔡律師再次在法庭中間「展演」。儘管因Covid-19的關係，入內須戴口罩的規定，但他坦白說這樣自己不方便說話，因此將口罩卸下。 但是五分鐘後，法官還是要求他：「請把口罩戴上」。
Defendant Att. Chen attempts to reuse the district court judge’s request for a simple definition of danger, but this time it’s not convincing enough for the judge.
被告陳律師旨在延續來自地方法院法官的要求，在高等法院中定義「何謂危險？」，但定義仍過於簡化，對這次的法官來說，似乎並沒有說服力。
Defendant Att. Wu argues that the plaintiffs must prove “a reasonable probability” of at least 50% of risk. “In Taiwan, there’s a new case of cancer every five minutes. These can’t be all attributed to air pollution. Moreover, our company ranks among one of the best in the world for the respect of environmental protection. Besides, the plaintiffs should not treat the courtroom as if it were an academic conference. Scientific simulations are not equal to solid data from the EPA.”
被告吳律師認為，原告必須證明至少有50％風險的「合理蓋然性」，因為「在台灣，每五分鐘就有一個新的癌症病例，這些難以全部歸因於空氣污染。再者，我們公司在環境保護方面，是世界最佳公司之一。 此外，原告不應濫用法庭資源，把這裡當作學術會議做研究，科學模擬並無法為EPA提供可靠的數據。」
19951116受不了的苦!季風呼號 沙石漫天 六輕工人蒙面趕工Read more