Judges to collect opinions over 'judiciary abuse'
By Lee Kyung-min
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae Yonh
A group of judges at the Seoul Central District Court held a meeting, Monday, over “judiciary abuse,” an allegation that the Supreme Court under the leadership of former chief justice Yang Sung-tae drafted documents to deliver verdicts on politically sensitive trials in exchange for the establishment of what would have been a de facto “Second Supreme Court.” This was Yang's top initiative to help lower the workload of top court justices and help many senior judges nearing retirement retain their prestigious high-ranking public posts longer.
In a meeting of three groups of similar rank, about 340, accounting for over 11 percent of the country's approximately 2,900 judges, deliberated over whether to recommend criminal investigation or a further internal probe into the allegations for “due accountability,” amid prevalent public distrust in the judiciary.
The meeting at the nation's largest court which reviews the highest-profile cases is among many consultative bodies that would recommend the next course of action for current chief justice Kim Myeong-su, amid growing calls to clearly disavow past wrongdoings as “isolated” incidents.
A conservative deliberative body comprised of district and high court heads will hold a meeting, Thursday. Next Monday, a group of young liberal judges that have long advocated for judicial reform are scheduled to meet. The group of senior judges is highly likely to oppose any further investigation _ much less the prosecution's involvement _ out of concerns it could set a “bad” precedent in which investigative officials intervene and meddle in judicial proceedings, an incident that could heavily undermine judicial authority. However, the liberal judges deem it a “necessary evil” to completely sever ties from past misdeeds.
Considering the largely expected political inclination of the two groups, Kim is expected to heed the recommendations from a discussion organized by a separate body comprised of outside experts from academia, advocacy groups and the legal circle which will hold a meeting today.
Yang seeks 'plausible deniability'
Yang, who twice rejected the committee's request for questioning over his knowledge of the allegations, said last Friday he was not aware of the alleged efforts undertaken by officials at the Office of Court Administration (OCA) under the top court. It was considered a move to claim plausible deniability in the detailed plan about ways to curry favor with the 2013-17 Park Geun-hye administration orchestrated by OCA officials in return for “advancing the chief justice's agenda.”
The announcement came days after the committee disclosed findings from 410 documents stored in computers of then-OCA officials, to which earlier investigations had been denied access. The committee headed by OCA chief Ahn Chul-sang refused to disclose the remaining files, citing the possible invasion of privacy and the sensitive nature of the content.
The committee-unveiled documents showed the OCA sought a two-track approach in orchestrating specific efforts to trade court rulings for the Park's administrative discretion. While only small part of slightly over half of the 410 files and the table of contents were disclosed as references, the content drew much outrage as it included ways to pressure the Korea Bar Association, ways to counter Lawyers for a Democratic Society, a group of liberal lawyers, and ways to signal and monitor what it called “problematic” judges. It also included ways to help Cheong Wa Dae establish justification and ways to use (as a means of public relations) the Chosun Ilbo, a major right-wing newspaper in Korea.
The documents also highlighted the “continued efforts to support the president-led government policy initiative,” supported by 14 rulings made by district courts and top courts that were cited as decisions that greatly benefited Park, giving her what she would have considered accurate accounts of history, protection of freedoms and democratic principles, and prioritizing economic development, all of which were her top priorities.
Despite the efforts, Yang failed to achieve his goal due to heated criticism that the judicial proceeding would create a court between the top court and appellate courts. Yang sought to have the top court justices lead deliberations only on a handful of politically and socially significant landmark cases with far-reaching implications, and have the second court handle the greater number of remaining appeals cases. The move was to unburden the top justices who have to rule on over 3,000 cases per year, but failed to gain public support as it would have inevitably required a substantial increase in senior judges that would help the top justices, a move welcomed by many senior judges nearing retirement wishing to hold onto their prestigious high-ranking public posts.