Canadian Expat Targeted by Taiwan’s Legal System

After more than four years of litigation, business disruption, and profound personal hardship, I, Ross Cline (柯受恩) — a Canadian citizen and long-term former resident of Taiwan — am publicly sharing a written document issued to me by the Taichung District Prosecutors Office in April 2025.

I am sharing it not because it vindicates me. I am sharing it because of what it is: a formal letter, in dense legal Chinese, in which the prosecutors' office reviews a complaint I filed about my own prosecution — and concludes that it finds no fault in its own handling of my case. The letter defends the conviction and the six-month sentence at length. It was mailed to a man the courts knew could not read Chinese.

A letter two AI systems could not agree on

I cannot read Chinese. So I did what any foreigner in my position does now: I ran the letter through leading AI translation systems. They reached opposite conclusions about what it said. One told me the letter acknowledged I had acted without malice and caused no harm. The other said it did no such thing. Two of the most advanced language systems on Earth, reading the same page of my own legal mail, could not agree on its meaning — and it ultimately took written correspondence with Taiwan's Control Yuan to settle what the document actually said.

Sit with that for a moment. If frontier AI cannot reliably decode one piece of this correspondence, what chance did I have — receiving mail like this, week after week, for four years, while my liberty depended on understanding it?

A note on accuracy: an earlier version of this post, relying on one of those AI readings, described the letter as an official acknowledgment that I acted without malicious intent and caused no harm. Having since obtained clarification of the original Chinese, I have corrected that characterization. I hold my own record to the same standard I ask of Taiwan's institutions: what is published must match what the documents say. The corrected picture is no less serious — it is a state organ reviewing itself, finding itself faultless, in a language its addressee cannot read.

What the court's own record shows

The comprehension problem is not my claim alone. It is written into the court's own transcripts, which I obtained by formal file inspection:

On 20 February 2023, at 18:55 in the courthouse detention room, the record states the court asked me — in Chinese — 「因現在無法聯繫通譯到場，是否聽得懂中文，是否同意現在開庭？」 ("An interpreter cannot be reached — do you understand Chinese, and do you consent to proceeding now?"). My recorded answer: 「我聽得懂一點中文」 — "I understand a little Chinese." The hearing then proceeded with no interpreter, and my legal rights were read to me in that setting.

One month later, on 22 March 2023, when asked whether I understood the rights just explained to me, the record shows my answer: 「我聽不懂。」 — "I do not understand." That day, the court adjourned for lack of an interpreter — the opposite of what it did on 20 February.

These are not my recollections. They are the court's own words, cited from its own file.

---

For context or media inquiries:
📧 ross@rosscline.com
🌐 rosscline.com
📞 (506) 321-8659
🇨🇦 New Brunswick, Canada

---

Taiwan Media and Human Rights

Based on my experience, concerns relating to alleged judicial misconduct can be difficult to raise or pursue through ordinary domestic channels. Where review mechanisms are perceived as limited or inaccessible, individuals may feel compelled to seek independent or international scrutiny. This raises broader questions about the practical effectiveness of available safeguards.

---

Rights Concerns Raised for Public Review Under the ICCPR and Taiwan's Constitution

I outline the following concerns for public and professional review. I am not asking anyone to accept my conclusions; I ask only that the record — the transcripts, the correspondence, and the documents linked on this site — be examined carefully and assessed objectively.

---

1. ICCPR Article 14 — Fair Trial Rights / Equality Before Courts

Article 14 protects the right to a fair hearing, equality before the courts, the ability to present a defense, and the opportunity to call and examine witnesses.

Concern: I contend that my defense was not fully heard, including difficulties in presenting witness testimony central to my account. The court's own record — including a hearing conducted with no interpreter after I stated I understood only "a little Chinese" — shows that language barriers were not consistently addressed to ensure meaningful participation and equality before the court.

2. ICCPR Article 9 — Protection From Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty

Article 9 protects individuals from arbitrary detention or punishment and requires that deprivation of liberty follow lawful and fair procedures.

Concern: I was taken into custody three separate times in connection with this case — the second, on the account given to me by the officers themselves, the result of a duplicate execution of the same arrest warrant, twelve days after I had already been produced and released with a fixed return date. Where procedural fairness is materially compromised, penalties may become arbitrary in effect.

3. Taiwan Constitution Article 16 — Right to Judicial Remedy

Article 16 guarantees access to judicial remedy when rights are infringed.

Concern: I believe I was not provided an effective remedy for the procedural and fairness issues I raised. The April 2025 letter linked above is what the review of my complaint produced: the office under complaint reviewing itself, and clearing itself. Where alleged deficiencies receive no independent review, the constitutional guarantee may be weakened in practice.

4. Additional Process and Equality Concerns

• Equality before the law (ICCPR Article 14): I believe my status as a foreign resident and my documented language limitations placed me at a significant disadvantage that was not effectively remedied.
• Fair evaluation of evidence: I maintain that relevant evidence supporting my account and context was not fully weighed and merits independent review.
• Proportionality: Even where a violation is found, penalties should remain proportionate. A six-month custodial sentence and a criminal record, arising from a tenancy dispute, is in my view excessive in effect and consequence.

---

Summary

I ask readers and observers to consider whether the record supports the following questions:

• Whether my defense and witnesses were meaningfully heard and considered.
• Whether language barriers were adequately addressed to ensure equality of participation — including at the hearing of 20 February 2023.
• Whether evidence was evaluated fairly and comprehensively.
• Whether the penalty outcome is proportionate to the conduct and its context.
• Whether an effective remedy exists when the body reviewing a complaint is the body complained of.

These questions can be assessed through the documents, audio recordings, and procedural record made publicly available on this site.

I respectfully invite journalists, legal experts, and human rights organizations to review the material and, where appropriate, raise these concerns through proper channels.

---

Additional Documentation: For further materials or inquiries, please contact me or consult the archive links below.