[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]Like I said, I don’t want to post lousy translations. The judge explained that the burden of proof lies with him, according to law number XXX (Didn’t you notice I used the numbers 345678? I said I wasn’t going to translate it. ) The judge also explained that the defendant had to prove his affirmations, otherwise his defense would be inadmissible. In essence, the burden of proof was on Dean.[/quote] Okey doke.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“RobinTaiwan”]Charlie, I know you can’t read Chinese and I don’t want to spend time putting together poor translations. I’ll just let you know that the judge addressed this very issue in his ruling. In layman’s terms, it sounds like this… Section 345, article 678 of the procedure code, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. The defendant failed to prove his innocence with substantial evidence and he is therefore considered guilty.
Have a friend translate it for you. 
PS: It’s not a homicide trial. Dean was convicted for public endangerment, among other things.[/quote]
Well, now I’m completely lost. I apologize and concede that you are right and I am wrong. Apparently (and regardless of the reason why) Mr. Dean was under a burden to prove his innocence. Besides, as it turns out I wasn’t even clear on what he was charged with.
[/quote]
Just for the “record”, and we’ve been through this before, am I correct in the belief that ZD was indicted for, tried for, and found guilty of, and I’m using the terminology that would be used at home, despite the considerably more colourful nature of the local nomenclature, vehicular homicide (more akin to manslaughter than actual homicide), leaving the scene, and, as RiT has noted, public endangerment (although, once again, the local version, being a Public Menace, is infinitely more entertaining)?
Again, and for some reason this seems impossible for some to grasp, he couldn’t be charged with drunk driving, despite his admission that he was impaired.
I’ve no doubt that the presiding judge credited the evidence provided as being compelling.
The presiding judge could have stated that he can shoot laser beams out of his eyeballs and is actually a fucking Cylon and nobody would argue.
Even so, I’m not making a case for the magistrate being subject to corruption, it’s not necessary. Knowing how Taiwan authority figures work, all that would be necessary would be for Hizzonner to feel like his authority was being challenged, and that could easily have been enough for him to choose a demonstration of that very authority.
Anyone who knows how psychotic local authority figures can be with respect to maintenance of face can see this as a real possibility.
Your average Taiwan boss (and that’s what, in essence, judges are) will gleefully burn down the entire company, just to show that he can.
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]Like I said, I don’t want to post lousy translations. The judge explained that the burden of proof lies with him, according to law number XXX (Didn’t you notice I used the numbers 345678? I said I wasn’t going to translate it. ) The judge also explained that the defendant had to prove his affirmations, otherwise his defense would be inadmissible. In essence, the burden of proof was on Dean.
With credit to those who think Dean was shafted, well, I’m not saying you’re not right, either. It’s very difficult to prove that evidence is tampered with or that the police force is corrupted. It often requires additional litigations that may take years to resolve. Someone can easily find himself between a rock and a hard place and I sincerely hope this isn’t the case for Dean.[/quote]
RobinTaiwan,
A number of us read Chinese. If you don’t want to translate the passage of the judgment you are citing, you can still cut and paste here the Chinese text of the specific short passage you are paraphrasing. I’m a professional legal translator and will be happy to translate the passage for everyone’s reference. (Or at least tell us in which of the numbered sections of the judgment the passage is found so we can refer to it ourselves.)
I can’t figure out what’s going on, but it looks as if the court tacked Articles 185-4, 276, and 185-3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China onto the end of the judgment as a kind of appendix:
[quote]中 華 民 國 100 年 3 月 15 日
附錄本案論罪科刑法條：
（一）中華民國刑法第185條之4
駕駛動力交通工具肇事，致人死傷而逃逸者，處6 月以上5 年以
下有期徒刑。
（二）中華民國刑法第276條
因過失致人於死者，處2 年以下有期徒刑、拘役或2 千元以下罰
金。
從事業務之人，因業務上之過失犯前項之罪者，處5 年以下有期
徒刑或拘役，得併科3 千元以下罰金。
（三）中華民國刑法第185條之3
服用毒品、麻醉藥品、酒類或其他相類之物，不能安全駕駛動力
交通工具而駕駛者，處1 年以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科15萬
元以下罰金。
共3 筆 / 現在第2 筆[/quote]
Caveat: I don’t know the exact relationship, if any, between the judgment and those three articles. Additionally, I can’t find a full-text translation of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China on the Internet, and the one I have at home (published in 1991) may not reflect later amendments or revisions. But anyway. . . .
Here’s what Wikipedia says about Article 185-4:
[quote]With personal injury or death, hit-and-run drivers of motor vehicles are also subject to imprisonment of 6 months to 5 years pursuant to Article 185-4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China. [/quote] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_and_run_(vehicular (I don’t know why, but the end parenthesis in the link won’t embed, so you’ll be taken to a “Did you mean” page with a proper link. Once you’re at the proper page, you can click “Criminal Penalty” under “Taiwan” in the Contents.)
Here’s a translation of Article 276 provided in a journal article by someone who apparently has a J.D. and a Ph.D.:
[quote]Article 276 Negligent Homicide
A person who negligently kills another shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years, detention, or a fine of no more than $2,000 yuan.
A person engaged in the operation of a business, who violates the previous section as a result of negligent operation of the business, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or detention, and may additionally be imposed a fine of no more than $3,000 yuan.[/quote]–Brian K. Chen, “Strict Liability for Medical Injuries? The Impact of Increasing Malpractice Liability on Obstetrician Behavior” (PDF document)
Here’s a translation of Article 185-3 provided by Lee and Li:
RobinTaiwan, You are misreading the judgment. I don’t see any passage in the judgment in which the court cites any article of the procedure code that can remotely be construed as saying that “the burden of proof lies with the defendant”. Please paste or cite the passage you are paraphrasing.
I don’t think I misread that part. I’m reading on my iPhone now but when I get home, after dinner, I’ll post it and you can do the translation part.
I’m pretty embarrassed now. Not so much because my reading skills aren’t really up to par to properly interpret the ruling so much as because I used a wrong interpretation in a conversation with Charlie. It’s not fair to him. I just read it again with some help. Here’s all I can say in my defense. My reading isn’t up to snuff for this so it’s a time consuming read. I think I’m sitting at about 65% comprehension and probably less if I read faster than I should. Some assumptions come into play to fill in the gap in comprehension. I can pick up on most sentence patterns but I critically fall short on vocabulary.
Thank you for the correction and a heartfelt apology to Charlie. 
I should not use my mediocre interpretation as a proxy in this discussion.
I hope you’re not embarrassed on my account. I don’t have any reading skills in Chinese, at least not much more than ni3 hao3 and the like. And anyway, it’s not really unfair or anything like that.
I thank Rotalsnart, too, for helping out here. Google Translate seems to help sometimes, but it’s very risky. Google Translate’s version of the judgment Feiren posted says that one of the people involved in the case “[f]ought for power in Iraq.” In fact, the Google Translate version of the judgment mentions Iraq a lot, and even throws in Iran at one point. I was like, “I didn’t know the judge’s jurisdiction extended that far.” And after a while, I started getting hungry for mashed chickpeas and eggplant stew.
I thank you both for bringing home to me one more time (although I don’t know how many times it’s gonna take) what a dark world I live in sometimes, because I can’t listen, speak, read, or write the way people do here.
Anyway, no sweat, no problem, everything’s copacetic. 
No sweat. Reading Taiwan court judgments can definitely be a slog.
Realizing it was risky business given my lack of Chinese knowledge, I nonetheless decided (perhaps impetuously) to take a crack at understanding part of the judgment, the sentencing part near the top, using Google Translate. Here’s what I got, for what it’s worth (obviously not guaranteeing my work):
The above looks like DWI and recidivism [edit:][strike](I don’t understand why there’s a reference to recidivism (累犯), if that’s what that word means)[/strike][end edit], with a sentence of five months.
The above looks like negligent homicide, with a sentence of one year and four months.
The above looks like fatal hit-and-run and recidivism [edit:][strike](again, I don’t understand why the recidivism, if that’s what it really means–could it mean (wild, wild, guess) something like “enhanced,” because of the fatality?)[/strike][end edit],with a sentence of one year.
Five months for DWI, plus one year and four months for negligent homicide, plus one year for hit-and-run involving a fatality, comes to two years and nine months.
That tally seems to disagree with a NOW News article’s title, which gives Mr. Dean’s sentence as two and a half years. But it appears to agree with an article on The Wild East website:
[quote]Tuesday at 4 pm, the judge at Taipei District courthouse read out the verdict in less than five minutes, and the group filed out of the courtoom. Two family members of the deceased motorcyclist left first, and then the half-dozen or more Zain Dean supporters listened in the hallway as the translator read the verdict in English.
The court handed down a guilty verdict to the Briton on three counts: 1) DUI, with a five-month sentence; 2) a hit-and-run accident (technically “leaving the site of an accident”), a one-year prison term; and 3) accidental homicide, sixteen months. After serving two years and nine months Dean faces expulsion. . . .[/quote]–Trista di Genova, “Worst-case scenario: Court rules guilty in Scotsman’s trial,” March 18, 2011
Additionally, as stated earlier, the court cites Articles 185-4 (fatal hit-and-run), 276 (negligent homicide), and 185-3 (DWI) of the Criminal Code, at the bottom of the judgment.
[Edit:] In another thread, two people wanted to know what this case had to do with the Microsoft case. I’m not one hundred percent certain, but I’m pretty certain that the use of the term recidivism in the court’s sentence was in reference to the Microsoft case. As stated elsewhere, I don’t have easy access to an English-language translation of the current Criminal Code. I have only some translated articles that might be available on the Internet and the translation of the old Criminal Code available in my 1991 edition of Major Laws of the Republic of China on Taiwan. But I’m going to take a guess that the 1991 version of the pertinent Criminal Code article on recidivism will suffice here even if it’s been amended. Here is Part I, Chapter VI, Article 47 of the Criminal Code as it was around 1991:
I think this is the part of the court’s judgment–located near the top of the judgment that Feiren posted earlier in this thread–that refers to the software case:
Another item: At the top of the judgment is the expression 公共危險 (gōnggòng wéixiǎn). Google Translate translates that as “Public Safety,” but while the first pair of characters (公共 gōnggòng) seems to mean public, the second pair (危險 wéixiǎn) seems to mean danger or dangerous. So the meaning seems to be “public danger.”
Part II, Chapter 11 of my old Criminal Code has the English title “Offenses Against Public Safety.” The Chinese title to the right side of the English one is 公共危險罪 (gōnggòng wéixiǎn zuì), which I think could be literally translated as “public danger crimes,” but which Google Translate translates as “Offenses Against Public Safety,” which is how the translator(s) of the Criminal Code in Major Laws translated it. That chapter of the Criminal Code seems to include Articles 173 through 194, meaning that it seems to include Article 185, the article which includes DWI and hit-and-run (DWI and hit-and-run don’t seem to be present in my 1991 version of the Code).
That might explain why it was thought that Mr. Dean was charged with a specific crime by that or a similar name.
The negligent homicide article is in Part II, Chapter 22, “Offenses of Homicide.” [end edit]
Just in parting, here’s an allegation which I find interesting, from the above-quoted article on The Wild East website (and please bear in mind that I’m not making this allegation myself, I’m merely quoting it):
[quote]Furthermore, critical surveillance footage from one of the city’s most camera-heavy intersections (Xinyi and Songren) had been suppressed in a case where guilt or innocence could have been easily established by this. When defense lawyer Billy Chen had pressed examining judges in the initial investigation for access to video footage, the magistrate snapped, “I’m not giving you the tapes, so stop asking me for them,” and observers believed this was not recorded in the trial transcript.[/quote] thewildeast.net/news/2011/03 … 99s-trial/
First of all I wanted to say thank you for all those people who have been posting here regarding my court case and have been looking at the history of such in a fair and impartial light. I have not posted here regarding this in the past, after following the advice of some of the members here, to not focus energy on the online debate, but rather to focus on the court defense. However, after receiving a rather unfair judgment verdict at the first court, I felt a chapter had closed and I should clear up some of the rumours and suchlike.
After watching the initial TV news reporting, it might have seemed ‘obvious’ to many that I was automatically guilty. However, I can say with all honesty that what was reported were not the actual facts of the case. I list some of the incorrect facts reported by Taiwanese news;
(1) I was not trying to destroy the evidence as the media and police claimed - I had made a public announcement on Facebook and in person at the Rotary club, witnessed by 50 or so people that I was to leave in the next few weeks (end of March, early April 2010). I supplied a Rotary signed letter proving this to court. The repair of the car was posted being more than the value of the car. 1994 E320’s can be bought for around 100k in Taiwan, and the repair cost using new parts would be way more than that. Using 2nd hand parts it would be around 80k, and a repair receipt was provided to court. 2nd hand parts would take a month to source and install. I would have already left Taiwan by this point. This is why the car was treated this way. The person I went to the KTV with, was a potential investor in a new company I was to start, and I didn’t want to make a fuss. He distinctly told my partner to ‘not make a fuss about it’. Hence I didn’t. The car was left in full public view on a main street, no attempt was made to hide the car.
BTW I’m from Scotland. We often refer to long term/ live-in partners as ‘her indoors’, ‘the missus’ etc. Under Scottish law she is my common law wife. We’ve been together for over 5 years, and I think of her as my wife. That’s why I say she is my wife. Technically: girlfriend, but no misunderstanding intended.
(2) I was not trying to escape to Jin Men/ China as was claimed by the police/ media: British nationals cannot enter China via Jin Men. I was on the way to the police station after discussing with the head of the Rotary club beforehand this exact point. A friend told me of the accident with a car similar to mine, around the same time, so I wanted to go and make a statement about it. I had no passport or ticket or luggage on my person at the time. This was shown in court. Phone records illustrated this point.
(3) I was not driving the car at the time of accident as was reported by the police / media: No evidence of such was presented. The only video evidence that was shown in court shows a KTV staff member (face not identifiable - and car was found later to have been wiped of finger prints) driving the car to the front of the KTV and I get in on the passenger side. (Incidentally, this footage was denied to my defense lawyer, and we had to wait 7 months before we could see it played once in court, and only after making repeated public requests in court for such). The KTV alibi of ‘getting out and walking back after 6 minutes’ was shown in court to be false on the grounds of (1) no camera footage from that particular intersection agreed with their claim (2) the ‘video stills footage’ provided by the police was shown to be faked - it showed a black Toyota Camry not a black Mercedes - and the judge threw this ‘evidence’ out. (3) of the three KTV staff statements, all were different in the facts. Only two of the staff came to court to testify, the other ‘dissapeared’ and could not be found. The two that came perjured themselves. Video and phone records also showed that they weren’t telling the truth. (4) Finally, you never see who is driving the car, so showing KTV staff milling about the front of the KTV is no indication of anything in my opinion, it certainly doesnt prove the prosecutors statements.
The fact that the Da An police had inserted fake pictures themselves should have been enough to get this case thrown out, and the KTV statements being contradictory should have been the last straw. But for some reason, the judges inserted a strange sentence into the verdict about ‘not dispelling a witness statement just because there were inconsistencies or exaggerations’ and that the fake pictures were not meant to be actual evidence but ‘supplementary information, not intended to be evidence’. (!?)
My lawyer had requested all the video footage along the entire route from the prosecutor back in April 2010, but none was provided.
My lawyer was denied the prosecutor files (for 4 months) and video evidence (for 7 months) after the trial started. Under law we should be allowed access and a copy of any video evidence, and until now, we haven’t received any.
The judge also made several references to my previous court case about installing Microsoft Windows and Office, etc on several computers in the office without valid receipts of purchase- Although what bearing that would have on this charge I don’t know.
(incidently, I had already paid a huge settlement to Microsoft in compensation and had been given a 10 month jail sentence (?!) which was commuted to a fine).
I feel very sad to have gotten mixed up with this entire episode. I would never leave an injured person knowingly at the side of the road. If I had been aware of the accident, I would have asked the driver to stop.
However, I can also understand why the general Taiwanese public became so enraged after watching the news reports - if I had seen them I probably would have jumped to the same conclusions. But those news reports were extremely biased and not based on fact or balanced reporting. The Da An police gave me over to the media after ‘investigating’ the incident for a few hours: after the boss of the KTV sent his manager over to ‘clear things up’ suddenly the police called a dozen TV news teams over.
I also feel very sorry for the family of the deceased who’d been manipulated early on by a local politician called Lin; who made a campaign against me on TV, radio and press stating that I had offered 10,000 USD in compensation and that I had been racist towards Taiwanese people. In fact I’d never met this person, and still haven’t. It was because of Lin’s statements, the nation became even more interested in this story. The insurance company offered to pay 2m NTD as the car was insured, why would I offer 300,000 NTD? However, later when I publically challenged Lin, and said I would sue and offer the win to the family of the victim, he stopped making his wild accusations.
I do feel that I had been given a trial by media at the outset, and that after that, the judges didn’t want to hear any of my defense. The story became too great. The judges found me guilty and worked back from there. The fact that I was a ‘rich’ foreigner made me an easy target. For those expats who’ve lived in Taiwan for any number of years will know there is bias against us by the local authorities when disputes with Taiwanese occur.
Having said that, I have had a great 15+ years of living in Taiwan, and I still am fond of the place. I had the bad luck to get involved with this whole affair. I have no anger in my heart towards Taiwan or Taiwanese people. I still am able to make an appeal and present my defense, and this is what I will do now.
Ouch. That sucks. Corruption like that makes you want to knock some heads together.
Good luck to you. I hope you get a more sympathetic, no, a judge who is willing to deal only with the evidence during your appeal.
I’m with you Zain. Positive mental energy will be sent your way. Keep us posted on your appeal.
Instead of just sympathizing, which I do. Go back and edit your post, or better still post it again. We are lazy people and dont take time to reference facts.
You say under law access should be provided, supply links. You make statements like.
Totally unclear to me, you haven’t received any, then what are the reference to 4 and 7 months? Perhaps its my English comprehension thats the problem.
You make reference to you being denied video footage, is this normal? Can you provide links, instances that this would be considered discriminatory treatment.
You say you are denied evidence you are entailed to by law, provide links to say you are entitled to that evidence.
People asked why you would listen to to this potential investor not to make a fuss. Why did he care? Why was he telling you not to make a fuss. Did he testify in court that he strongly requested you dont make a fuss?
Lastly, and if you have been following the thread. Why the fuck wasn’t the transponder records of the KTV guys cell phone requested?
Im sorry if this comes across as unsympathetic, in fact i am, but you need to hear the truth, which is a story about how I was going to do this, and so and so told me that, aint gonna fly.
This has turned into quite the epic. I’m not going to make any judgement as to Zain Dean’s innocence or guilt - I don’t think anyone can, considering the lack of evidence. But it has surprised me that so many have expected western standards of justice to be applied here. This is not the west. I have no idea how to conduct a legal battle in Taiwan but I’m fairly sure that assuming the court will presume innocence is not the way to go about it.
You really have zero recollection of the accident but you vividly remember asking the driver to get out and let you drive home by yourself. You also remember everything else that happened on this short drive quite vividly. The only thing you have no recollection of is the SEVERE impact that killed a motorist.
I’m sorry but… I don’t believe you. As such, I don’t expect a court of law to do otherwise unless you can prove it.
Your affirmative approach to defending yourself will do very little for you unless you can back up your affirmations with a semblance of evidence.
My apologies in advance if the above offends some readers…
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]You really have zero recollection of the accident but you vividly remember asking the driver to get out and let you drive home by yourself. You also remember everything else that happened on this short drive quite vividly. The only thing you have no recollection of is the SEVERE impact that killed a motorist.
I’m sorry but… I don’t believe you. As such, I don’t expect a court of law to do otherwise unless you can prove it.
Your affirmative approach to defending yourself will do very little for you unless you can back up your affirmations with a semblance of evidence.
My apologies in advance if the above offends some readers…[/quote]
Rob, you emphasized the severity of the impact, but this goes against the evidence; namely, that the airbag didn’t go off, which indicates an impact not very severe at all. I saw the damage to the car, which looked bad, so I can only conclude that that happened over a distance rather than bringing the car to an abrupt halt, which would have set off the airbag and–perhaps–woken Mr Dean. Also, in his statement, Mr Dean mentions that the driver had to try to wake him up; it is very feasible to me that one could be so unconscious as to sleep through an impact that was so weak as to not set off the airbag and need some considerable effort from another person to be awoken.
Just offering a plausible explanation to circumstances that lead you to believe that Mr Dean is lying.
Thank you, but it appears that Mr. Dean is quite capable of answering for himself.
Few car/scooter accidents set off air bags, by the way. I witnessed more than one severe impacts involving cars and scooters. Believe me, the people in the car were wide awake.
Thank you!