Interpretation 508 and detention of foreigners [OT from Zane Dean]

[Note: I’m posting here because the Zane Dean Part III thread has mysteriously disappeared and this was a bit off topic anyway.

The context was that a discussion of whether the authorities had enough evidence against David, the foreigner who says Zane Dean stole his passport and exited. David is apparently being held by the National Immigration Agency in ‘temporay detention.’ This is the real subject of this post.

I agree. They would have had plenty of evidence to charge David. Zane Dean’s exiting on his passport, his allegedly false report to the police when he reported his wallet stolen back in August (?), and his statements to the police when he was arrested.

However, I believe he is being held in detention without judicial review under Article 38(1) of theImmigration Act, which gives the National Immigration Agency the power to detain a foreign national temporarily if a compulsory exit order has been proven difficult or impractical to enforce when the foreign national has overstayed. The detainee can petition the Immigration Agency for release, but there is no review by a court unlike normal detentions applied for by prosecutors in criminal cases.

In other words, David is being held without the authority of a court or recourse to a court like thousands of migrant workers from Southeast Asia have been. Sometimes they have been held for years.

The good news for foreigners is that Taiwan’s Constitutional Court recently held this provision to be unconstitutional in Interpretation 508. The Constitutional Court (if I’m reading the decision correctly) said that no one in Taiwan including foreigners can be deprived of their liberty even temporarily without court review.

The bad news for David is that this unconstitutional provision will stay in effect until the Legislature passes a constitutional measure to replace it or until February 2015 when the provision will automatically become void.

Great post. By the way the ZD thread is still there. … &start=610

I find this one of the cases where the interests of white collar and blue collar foreigners clearly collide and why supporting improved conditions and legal rights for blue collar workers is a win:win for all foreigners here in Taiwan.

Just saw this thread.
I’ve posted some of the interpretation previously, just a few thread below.
To correct a minor point, the interpretation number is 708 instead of 508.

Also in this interpretation, the constitutional court did not deny the NIA’s right to detain foreigner for deportation but set up a smaller time limit for maximum detention,
and require NIA to notify the detainees their right to go to court for the detention.

This interpretation, however, is not for David, since he’s currently a suspect for a crime and is not being ruled for deportation.

The common detention for crime suspect is another thing, which can be found in “The Code of Criminal Procedure”-“Chapter X Detention of Accused”
Here is the English version for “The Code of Criminal Procedure”