By Lee Kyung-min
The Supreme Court will convene an ethics committee, today, to discuss whether its fact-finding committee conducted a thorough investigation before concluding there was no “blacklist of judges.” The list was allegedly created by the top court to deny promotions of those critical of the judicial administration and Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae. Possible punitive measures will be also discussed on former Supreme Court officials allegedly involved in suppressing what it deemed an “anti-conformist” move.
The 11-member committee comprised of figures, the identities of whom are withheld, from both within and outside judicial circles will hold a third meeting. If they reach an agreement, their findings will be disclosed within the next two days.
Chief Justice Yang is expected to reflect this in deciding whether to defer his authority to reopen the investigation of such an “explosive” allegation to a group of judges who have been asking for it.
The controversy emerged in February after it was alleged that the Office of Court Administration under the Supreme Court sought to scale down a judges-only academic symposium.
Since August 2015, the meeting, known as a human rights study group, raised questions about whether the judges are able to make independent rulings free of pressure from a Supreme Court justice or other personnel affairs. Judicial reform was another key agenda item.
The allegation grew larger after the chief of the study group, only identified by his surname Lee, revealed he was offered a promotion to the Office of Court Administration in what he said was an exchange of his commitment to scale down such "anti-conformist" activities.
Lee said that he had a phone conversation with Lim Chong-heon, the then-second-in-command at the office, about how Lee “should do what was expected of him.” Lee offered to resign and his promotion was withdrawn.
As the allegation grew larger, the Supreme Court asked Judicial Research and Training Institute professor emeritus Lee In-bok, a former Supreme Court justice, to conduct an internal investigation into the allegation in an effort to allay the fury against the judges, but the outrage was further fueled after he concluded there was no such list.
On April 18, Lee said while he found the Office of Court Administration abused its authority in its attempt to scale down or delay the judges’ symposium, it is highly unlikely the office created a “blacklist.”
Lee, in his 57-page report, said Lee Kyu-jin, a standing committee member at the Sentencing Commission under the Supreme Court, was found to have pressured judges of the symposium. Lim, unlike earlier allegations, had not done so, Lee concluded.
Following the announcement, Lim and Lee Kyu-jin, as well as Office of Court Administration head Ko Young-han, who doubled Supreme Court justices, all resigned amid an allegation they were in charge of such efforts to suppress critical voices within the judiciary.
However, his findings drew skepticism from many judges, given Lee was a highly regarded senior member of the judiciary best characterized by his impartiality, fairness and disinterest in politics.
Most judges found it questionable, especially because Lee was unable to examine the computer hard drive where the passcode-locked list was allegedly stored.
The Office of Court Administration refused Lee's request to go over the files in the computer, saying no documents were to be reviewed by individuals other than those who wrote them. It also cited security protocols.
Such an “absurd” response prompted the Seoul High Court, the most senior and relatively conservative group of judges, to demand the reopening of an internal investigation into the allegation.
As chief justice Yang continued to ignore calls to publicly announce his stance clarifying the allegation and his subsequent measures, over 100 judges nationwide convened a meeting last Monday to discuss measures about the list at the Judicial Research and Training Institute in Goyang, Gyeonggi Province.
After the meeting, judges agreed to demand Yang defer his authority to reopen the investigation, seek immediate punitive measures on all figures involved, offer a clear apology and punitive measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents and establish a standing consultative body of judges.
Meanwhile, a civic group filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office against Yang and eight former and incumbent Supreme Court key officials on charges of obstruction of justice. The district office is reviewing whether to prosecute the case.
Meanwhile, according to a study conducted by the symposium, of 502 judges who participated in the survey, almost 90 percent, or 443, said they feared punitive personnel actions if they expressed criticism of the Supreme Court chief justice or court heads.
Almost half, or 45 percent, said they also feared punitive actions if they rule against the administration in power or certain political groups.
Such responses reflect the “overwhelming, imperial” power bestowed to the top justice. For a single six-year term, the top justice is granted full discretion over personnel affairs of about 3,000 judges and 15,000 judicial employees including 12 Supreme Court justices.
Promotions of judges are reportedly determined to a considerable degree by the political inclinations of the rulings they make on socially and ideologically contentious cases. Yang, appointed by former President Lee Myung-bak, a known conservative, has about two months until his retirement in September.
Meanwhile, the collective convention of judges is the first in eight years since 2009 when a similar number of judges organized a meeting to protest former Supreme Court chief justice Shin Young-chul.
The meeting was held to demand Shin resign, following the revelation that he, then head of the Seoul Central District Court and a major Supreme Court justice candidate in 2008, called and sent emails to judges at the district court who presided over cases involving candlelit street protesters about the import of U.S. beef to promptly rule against them.
The rulings that greatly suited then-President Lee Myung-bak eventually helped Lee appoint Shin as Korea’s top judge. Shin finished his term in full in February 2015.