Judiciarys Independence

Calls Growing for Stern Action Against Justice Shin

A row over a Supreme Court justice has only reaffirmed that the nation has a long way to go to ensure the independence of the judiciary and thereby the rule of law. Pessimism is growing about the role of the judiciary as the last bastion of democracy, which exists to protect freedom and rights of the people.

The debate of the independence of the judiciary dates back to the 1970s when the dictatorial regime forced judges to hand down guilty verdicts to pro-democracy activists on trumped-up charges. Many dissidents, unionists, students, scholars and artists could have avoided persecution and crackdowns if only there had been conscientious and courageous judges standing up for justice.

With rapid progress in democratization in South Korea in the past decades, such a debate now seems to be meaningless. But the nation's judicial system has continued to be mired in scandals and incidents, raising skepticism about judicial reform that was actively pushed by previous governments. The sure thing is that the judiciary cannot realize its goal of independence and neutrality without sincere reflection of and self-criticism for its shameful past.

It is really regrettable that the Supreme Court has failed to take any appropriate action against Justice Shin Young-chul who tried to influence trials of civic activists indicted for staging violent rallies against the resumption of U.S. beef imports last year. An internal investigation team concluded in March that Shin sent a series of e-mails to junior judges of the Seoul Central District Court last October when he served as the chief of the court.

There is little doubt that Shin unduly damaged the independence of judges by sending such e-mails calling for speedy trials or to refrain from releasing the indicted activists on bail. He was also accused of allocating the trials to judges he favored. Shin's inappropriate and unjust activities unquestionably run counter to democratic principles and the spirit of the Constitution.

But last week, the Supreme Court's ethics committee recommended Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon to issue only a verbal warning to him, although it concluded that Shin's e-mails to the junior judges were ``inappropriate" enough to be seen as pressure. How could he go without disciplinary action for his misdeed? The top court is under severe criticism for trying to protect Shin at the sacrifice of the justice system for the people.

Even a large number of reform-minded judges throughout the country are strongly protesting the court's inability to punish Shin for his inexcusable attempts to apply pressure on the trials. Some of the judges demand he should resign immediately to take responsibility for the scandal. The Supreme Court should respect the judges' calls for disciplinary action against him. It's time to learn a lesson from the Shin case in order not to repeat the past mistakes of the judiciary.