Judicial union head calls for 'no-holds barred' probe
By Lee Kyung-min
The leader of a judicial civil servants' union urged the prosecution, Monday, to conduct a thorough investigation into “abuse by judiciary,” claiming judges should be subject to the same stringent standards of justice over a highly damaging allegation that continues to erode public trust in the judiciary. The high-profile scandal that rattled Korea over the past few weeks concerns an allegation that the top court under the leadership of former chief justice Yang Sung-tae drafted documents on delivering “friendly verdicts” on politically sensitive trials to the previous Park Geun-hye administration, in exchange for the establishment of what would have been a de facto “Second Supreme Court.” The Office of Court Administration (OCA) also allegedly discussed measures to suppress critical voices within the judiciary by creating and managing a so-called “blacklist of judges.”
The man surnamed Cho, who heads the judicial branch under the national civil servants union representing about 10,000 workers at district courts, high courts and the Supreme Court, appeared before the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office to make statements. The appearance followed prosecutors' request that he submit to an interview over a complaint he filed against Yang for suspected abuse of authority last month. Cho demanded an investigation be launched over suspicion that the top court under Yang sought to scale down a judges-only academic forum which since August 2015 continually raised questions about whether the judges are able to make independent rulings free of pressure from a top court justice or other personnel affairs. Judicial reform was another key agenda item.
Cho requested the prosecution confiscate computers used by key OCA officials including Yang, then-second-in-command at the office Lim Chong-heon and his immediate superior Park Byoung-dae, the former OCA head who doubled as top court justice. “The Supreme Court does not and cannot be exempt from the judicial procedures seeking accountability. It is up to an individual judge who issues the seizure warrant to determine whether the investigation requires confiscation of necessary materials, not the top court.” The comment helps advance a stance maintained by the prosecution which seeks to review files in question containing the list as well as other documents which discussed measures in detail to advance the establishment of the new court. A review of the computers in question is deemed highly necessary, as earlier in-house investigations continued to make “absurd” conclusions despite volumes of evidence that suggested otherwise.
Previous investigations said there was “no blacklist of judges,” adding the administrative office made no efforts to punish what it deemed “anti-conformist, liberal” voices. The findings only fueled outrage from the judges and the public at large because such “unacceptable” determinations were made despite failure to examine the computer hard drives where a pass-code locked list was allegedly stored.
The prosecution is awaiting a response from the OCA after asking for compliance to hand over eight computer hard drives used by four key officials there including Lim and Yang. They also asked for documents with detailed accounts of OCA officials being questioned over their suspected involvement in drafting and executing Yang's plan. He categorically denied doing this. The preserved documents contain statements from 49 court officials including Lim, Park, former top court justices and non-ranking members who came up with specific ways to advance the establishment of the new court. Seizing such documents, prosecutors believe, will largely uncover the command hierarchy, thereby enabling effective accountability of figures involved, including Yang. This reflects concerns that many judges upon questioning are highly unlikely to make statements against their superiors, a common “practice” within the mostly conservative organization.