Investigative committee finds no 'blacklist of judges'

By Lee Kyung-min

A committee formed under Supreme Court Chief Justice Kim Meong-su concluded that there was no “blacklist of judges” Monday, despite the review of volumes of evidence that suggest otherwise. No judges, it said, were subject to undue personnel measures based on any list. The questionable conclusion came almost a year after the Office of Court Administration (OCA) under the Supreme Court came under fire over allegations that it created the list to control and suppress liberal voices within the judiciary. Criticism is expected that the list was designed only to let judges who carried out orders under Kim’s predecessor Yang Sung-tae off the hook for repeating what many of their predecessors were believed to have continued for decades.

The committee headed by Seoul High Court judge Min Joung-kie, who led the second investigation into the scandal, recognized that there were documents on judges who criticized the chief justice or the administrative affairs management at the top court. “Some reports detailed the political orientation of judges who publicly voiced criticism among peers and those who criticized the 'imperial' power exercised by the chief justice. A variety of countermeasures were discussed including cutting the budgets for small study groups comprised of such judges,” Min said in the report.

“However, no one was subject to demotion or unwanted relocation to rural areas as a result of maintaining or expressing such opinions. It is unclear whether or how those measures were put in place and who was involved, over which the committee had no authority or discretion to identify details,” he added.

However, he added that writing a document on individual judges about their personal information, political orientation, friendships and private affairs only because they expressed criticism, was in itself a cause for grave concern as it could infringe on the independence of judges. “Much of this information was obtained through questionable means and procedures, well beyond the need to maintain judicial administrative efficiency.”

The report showed that measures were discussed to have an online community comprised of only women judges voluntarily shut down. One of the OCA officials signed up as a member to monitor and report the community’s activities.

Given that is only a portion of the report in which Min criticized how OCA officials _ the elite group of judges _ discussed measures to isolate dissident voices within the judiciary, his conclusion is expected to draw further criticism over the failure in recognizing such documents as a blacklist. It would further lose legitimacy as it followed a review of documents on a computer used by OCA officials, key evidence to which an earlier investigation committee was denied access.

Meanwhile, the findings came amid brewing antipathy toward the new chief justice following his move to drastically reform the judiciary. About 80 judges are mulling tendering their resignations ahead of the regular personnel reshuffle next month, twice the usual number compared to the past few years. Many of them are known to oppose the planned abolishment of promotion to presiding judge at high courts next year. While it would reduce the number of political rulings often made by judges seeking the highly-coveted honor to suit the political orientation of the chief justice who grants promotions, the abrupt decision last November shocked many who expected promotions to vice-ministerial-level posts within the high courts. Many judges have long criticized the seniority-based promotion under which only a handful of judges a year are chosen by the chief justice, who are then under pressure to follow the political inclinations of the president who recommended him or her to the top judicial post.