The China Times today reports that a Mr. Zhang was convicted by the Banqiao District Court of criminal defamation for flipping the bird and fined NT$6,000. He also lost a civil case and was ordered to pay NT$20,000 to the victim of his crime.
Mr. Zhang’s daughter had a criminal complaint filed against her by a Ms.Chen. He went with his daughter to a hearing in the matter at the Banqiao District Prosecutor’s Office. He saw Ms. Chen in the waiting room, lost his temper, and flipped her off for two seconds. Ms. Chen screamed at Zhang but her younger brother managed to keep her from going after Zhang. Zhang’s daugher testified that all she saw was Ms. Chen screaming at her father.
Chen’s younger brother was the only witness who saw Zhang flip the bird. The security guard on duty testified that he didn’t see anything. Incredibly, there are no security cameras in the waiting room at the Prosecutor’s Office in Banqiao (a place where parties to criminal cases wait together before being called in to hearings by the prosecutor).
Nonetheless, the prosecutor reasoned that Ms. Chen would not have thrown a fit in a public place unless she had been incited to rage by someone. 'Therefore(!), she must have been telling the truth when she said that Mr. Zhang flipped her off. Apparently the court agreed.
She claimed NT$900,000 in damages.
Dearpeter doesn’t have a chance!
An important thing to notice here is that the standard of proof is nothing like ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ for criminal cases. As far as I can tell, the evidentiary standards are completely at the discretion of the judge and the prosecutor’s evidence is likely to be given great weight.
[begin speculation]
My thesis at the moment is that the evidentiary standards are almost the reverse of those in the US. In the US, you have to prove a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence (>51%) and a criminal case by the evidence being beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. much higher than 50%).
I think in Taiwan, the prosecutor really only has to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence in a criminal case, but in a civil case the plaintiff has to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps that’s why the easiest way to victory in a civil case (as here) is by winning a criminal one first. Using the prosecutor, you can win in the criminal case with a lower burden of proof and then you can take your conviction to the civil court where you can meet the higher standard of evidence there with your criminal conviction.