Dear [Journalist’s Name / Editor],

I’m a Canadian citizen from New Brunswick. I lived in Taiwan for over 15 years and ran an education business there. I’m reaching out because my case may be of public interest as a story about a Canadian abroad, due process in a foreign justice system, and the limits of Canada’s response when citizens allege rights violations overseas.

The matter began as a civil rental dispute involving safety issues (a door that did not lock, contrary to the lease). The courts found that in 2021, during that dispute, I posted online documents containing my landlord’s personal data, including our lease, and that some of the material stayed online for months; my own account is that the lease was up for about two days. That resulted in criminal charges under Taiwan’s Personal Data Protection Act. I could not read the judgments and learned their findings only in September 2026; I am not asking anyone to retry the facts.

I was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The conviction became final on 16 October 2024. A conversion to 1,086 hours of community service was revoked on 20 March 2025 for non-performance, which means imprisonment is now the default outcome if I return to Taiwan. On legal advice I had already left the country, losing my home, business, and community.

My concern is not the verdict but the process. The five witnesses I applied to call in March 2024 were never summoned. No document in the proceedings was ever translated for me. Some hearings were held with no interpreter at all; the court’s own file records an evening hearing in February 2023 that went ahead after the judge asked me, in Chinese, whether I understood Chinese. At others the person sworn as interpreter conveyed, by my account, a fraction of what was said. Legal-aid counsel sat with me at first instance and did not interpret; I had no counsel on appeal. The Supreme Prosecutors Office did not dispute any of this when it declined an extraordinary appeal in December 2025; in September 2026 it declined again, writing that whether an interpreter was used “obviously did not affect” the outcome, because my own appeals, written without an interpreter or a lawyer, had not argued that it did. Whether that meets the fair-trial standard of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Taiwan has incorporated into domestic law, is the question I am raising.

I want to be direct about one thing, because you would find it anyway. An earlier version of this page claimed that Taiwanese authorities had acknowledged I did nothing wrong. That was inaccurate and I have withdrawn it. I had been reading Chinese-language official correspondence using AI translation, without a lawyer, and two AI systems produced opposite readings of the same letter. I acted on the favourable one. Taiwan’s Control Yuan corrected me in writing in October 2025. That episode may itself be the more interesting story.

This raises a broader question: what meaningful recourse does a Canadian citizen have when alleging treaty-level rights concerns abroad—especially when local remedies are exhausted and domestic support remains limited?

I make no allegation of corruption against any judge or prosecutor, and I am not asking anyone to say a court was wrong. I’m not asking for advocacy—only whether this warrants journalistic review. I can provide court records, a detailed timeline, and relevant official correspondence. I’m willing to speak on the record.

Published record: JURIST, 29 September 2026 — When Court Interpretation Failed in Taiwan, I Turned to a Chatbot
Media brief (PDF, v2.0): Download
One-page summary (PDF, EN + 中文, v2.0): Download
Full documentation & timeline: /blogs/scam

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ross Cline 柯受恩
rosscline.com
New Brunswick, Canada
+1 (506) 321-8659
iLearn.tw (formerly Taichung, Taiwan)

What this is

Four scholars of law, interpreting and forensic linguistics from Canada, Australia and Korea, writing in a personal capacity, have asked Taiwan’s Judicial Yuan to take three measurable steps on court interpretation for defendants who do not understand Mandarin: publish the number of Article 99 interpreter appointments, record an interpreter’s presence in every hearing record and judgment header, and introduce a mechanism for checking interpretation quality. The letter takes no position on any individual case, including mine, and asks for nothing on behalf of any party. I convened it; I am not a signatory. The Chinese text is the operative text and was delivered first; the English follows it.

Delivery record

Three signatories have consented to be named here: Kent Roach, Professor of Law, University of Toronto; Dr Diana Eades, Adjunct Professor, University of New England, Australia; and Holly Mikkelson, Professor Emerita of Translation and Interpreting, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who added her name on 20 October 2026, after delivery (the three recipients were notified on 21 October 2026). The other two signatories, scholars of interpreting in Korea and Australia, are not named on this page; names appear only with each signatory’s consent. The three recipients received the letter with the four original names. Any reply from the Judicial Yuan will be added here.

中文（送達本文）

司法院 秘書長 鈞鑒
副本：國家人權委員會；立法院司法及法制委員會

主旨：關於不通曉國語之刑事被告之法庭通譯，建請採行三項可量測之措施

我們是口筆譯研究、法律語言學與刑事司法領域的學者。我們不對任何個案表示立場，亦不為任何當事人提出任何請求。我們來函，是因為台灣做了許多法域尚未做到的事：2009年，台灣以施行法賦予《公民與政治權利國際公約》國內法效力（包括第14條第3項第6款免費通譯協助之權利）；2020年，台灣修正刑事訴訟法第99條，明定語言不通之被告「應由通譯傳譯之」。這些承諾，許多法域做得更慢。

2026年3月31日，國家人權委員會發布報告指出，此項權利在實務上未能穩定落實，而在有通譯之情形，亦無即時或事後查核通譯品質之機制。其後，最高法院將第99條闡釋為刑事被告之「通譯依賴權」，屬已內國法化之公約第14條第3項保障之一，並謂法院遇當事人為外籍人士者，即應徵詢是否需要通譯，並告知得聲請特約通譯（114年度台上字第2354號，2025年7月9日）；另一判決則以法庭錄音作為查核傳譯正確性之依據（114年度台上字第1495號，2025年7月30日）。然此等標準是否落實，無法自法院公開之裁判書得知：司法院裁判書開放資料中四個月份（2021年7月、2023年9月、2024年7月、2025年7月）之刑事裁判共105,762件，無一在首部記載有無通譯；其中被告姓名為拉丁字母者2,264件，全文提及傳譯者僅11件。我們謹建請司法院採行三項措施。三者皆屬紀錄與查核之措施，而非結果之要求；成本皆低；合而觀之，可使台灣及關注台灣的研究者看見這項保障如何運作。

一、於司法統計年報中公布被告不通曉國語之刑事案件依第99條選任通譯之件數與比率，按年度、審級與語言分列。司法院已按國籍與判決結果公布詳細之外籍被告統計；所缺者唯此一數字，而它正是第99條落實程度得以量測之數字。

二、於每份審判筆錄之固定欄位及每份刑事判決書之首部，記載有無通譯及通譯語言，使前項數字得由紀錄彙整，而非估算。

三、依人權會之建議，建立法庭通譯品質之查核機制：至少包括於上訴期間內保存法庭錄音，以及當事人於庭期中或庭期後就傳譯正確性提出疑義之明確途徑。

以上三項皆無須修法。我們之中數人曾就相同問題與法院合作，樂於與司法院同仁分享經驗。我們對台灣已完成之立法深表肯定，並期盼台灣進一步使其成果可見。

敬此

連署人：口筆譯研究、法律語言學與刑事司法領域之學者四人（加拿大、澳洲、韓國），以個人身分連署。連署人之姓名與所屬機構已載於送達司法院、國家人權委員會及立法院司法及法制委員會之信函；本頁暫不公開，待連署人分別同意後公布。

English

To the Secretary-General
Judicial Yuan, Republic of China (Taiwan)
cc: National Human Rights Commission; Judiciary and Organic Laws Committee, Legislative Yuan

Subject: Three measurable steps on court interpretation for defendants who do not understand Mandarin

We write as scholars of interpreting, forensic linguistics and criminal justice. We take no position on any individual case and ask for nothing on behalf of any party. We write because Taiwan has done something that few jurisdictions have done. In 2009 it gave the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the Article 14(3)(f) right to the free assistance of an interpreter, the force of domestic law. In 2020 it amended Article 99 of its Code of Criminal Procedure so that a defendant who does not understand Mandarin “shall” be assisted by an interpreter. These are commitments many jurisdictions have been slower to make.

On 31 March 2026 Taiwan’s National Human Rights Commission reported that the right is not reliably delivered in practice, and that where interpretation is provided there is no real-time or post hoc mechanism to check its quality. Taiwan’s Supreme Court has since described Article 99 as the accused’s right to rely on an interpreter, one of the Covenant’s Article 14(3) guarantees with domestic force, and has said that a court before which a party is a foreign national shall ask whether an interpreter is needed and inform the party that a special-contract interpreter may be requested (114年度台上字第2354號, 9 July 2025); in another case it treated the courtroom recording as the instrument for testing an interpreter’s accuracy (114年度台上字第1495號, 30 July 2025). Whether those standards are met cannot be seen from the record the courts publish. In the 105,762 criminal judgments released in the Judicial Yuan’s open-data archive for four months (July 2021, September 2023, July 2024 and July 2025), none records in its header whether an interpreter was present, and of the 2,264 in which an accused has a Latin-script name, only eleven mention interpretation anywhere in the text. We respectfully ask the Judicial Yuan to take three steps. Each is a measure of documentation and verification rather than of outcome; each costs little; and together they would let Taiwan, and those who study it, see the guarantee working.

First, publish in the annual Judicial Statistics the number and proportion of criminal proceedings involving defendants who do not understand Mandarin in which an interpreter was appointed under Article 99, by year, court level and language. The Judicial Yuan already publishes detailed statistics on foreign defendants by nationality and outcome. This is the one figure that is missing, and it is the figure on which compliance with Article 99 can be measured.

Second, record the presence or absence of an interpreter, and the language interpreted, in a fixed field of every hearing record and in the header of every criminal judgment, so that the figure above can be compiled from the record rather than estimated.

Third, introduce a mechanism for verifying the quality of court interpretation, as the Commission recommended: at a minimum, the retention of hearing audio for the duration of any appeal, and a stated avenue by which a party may raise a concern about accuracy during or after a hearing.

None of these steps requires new legislation. Several of us have worked with courts on the same questions and would gladly share that experience with the Judicial Yuan’s staff. We write in appreciation of what Taiwan has already legislated, and in the hope that it will now make the result visible.

Respectfully,

Signed by Kent Roach, Professor of Law, University of Toronto; Dr Diana Eades, Adjunct Professor, University of New England, Australia; and two further scholars of interpreting, from Korea and Australia, whose names were given to the three recipients and are not published here. A fifth signatory, Holly Mikkelson, MA, Professor Emerita of Translation and Interpreting, Graduate School of Translation, Interpretation and Localization Management, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, added her name on 20 October 2026, after delivery; the three recipients were notified on 21 October 2026. Institutional affiliations are listed for identification only; all five signed in a personal capacity.

Convened by Ross Cline, who is not a signatory. Text as delivered on 20 October 2026.

On 29 October 2026 I sent a four-page submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, in answer to her public call for inputs on migrants’ access to independent and impartial justice systems (deadline 27 November 2026), for her thematic report to the 65th session of the Human Rights Council. Full text (English, PDF, 4 pages): UN_SR_submission_Cline_2026-10-29.pdf. The call: ohchr.org.

It answers the call’s questions on linguistic barriers, interpretation and translation, legal assistance and remedies. It sets the documented record of one case beside the National Human Rights Commission’s finding of 31 March 2026, the freedom-of-information request for the Article 99 appointment figure, filed on 3 September (11509030004) and unanswered when the submission was sent (the Judicial Yuan refused it on standing grounds later the same day; see the reference table and the current status), and the count of 105,762 criminal judgments whose headers record counsel and never an interpreter. It recommends five measures: publish the appointment figure annually; record an interpreter’s presence and language in every hearing record and judgment; keep the hearing audio for the appeal period; give every foreign defendant, at final judgment, a one-page notice in a language he reads of the post-conviction routes and their deadlines; and never treat an unrepresented, uninterpreted defendant as having waived the interpreter guarantee by failing to raise it in an appeal he wrote himself. It takes no position on the facts of any case and makes no allegation of misconduct against any judge or prosecutor.

The signatories of the scholars’ letter who have consented to be named in it are Kent Roach, Professor of Law, University of Toronto; Dr Diana Eades, Adjunct Professor, University of New England, Australia; and Holly Mikkelson, Professor Emerita of Translation and Interpreting, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Submissions are normally posted on the Special Rapporteur’s page on the OHCHR website after the deadline; the link will be added here when it appears.

Two official documents concern the same question: in how many criminal cases a defendant who does not understand the language of the court has been given an interpreter under Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the 2020 amendment made that interpreter mandatory. On 29 October 2026 the Judicial Yuan’s Department of Judicial Administration refused my request for that figure on the ground that a foreign national living outside Taiwan has no standing to apply; it did not say whether the figure exists. On 3 November 2026 the Ministry of Justice formally transferred the same question, with three related ones, to the Judicial Yuan as matters within the Yuan’s authority, and asked to be told how they are handled. Both documents are reproduced here in full, in Chinese as received and in my English working translation. I cite them in a commentary submitted to JURIST on 6 November 2026.

1. Judicial Yuan, Department of Judicial Administration — reply of 29 October 2026 (司法信箱 cases 11509030004 and 11510020001)

What it is: a written decision under the Freedom of Government Information Law (政府資訊公開法) refusing, on standing grounds, the application of 3 September 2026 (reminder 2 October) for (i) statistics on the appointment of contract interpreters in criminal cases, (ii) the amounts paid to court interpreters and (iii) any evaluation of the effect of Article 99. It was served by email on 29 October 2026, the 56th day after filing; the Law allows 15 days for a decision, extendable once by up to 15. An administrative appeal (訴願) to the Judicial Yuan’s Appeal Review Committee has been drafted and is to be filed by 27 November 2026. The decision names no individual.

Chinese, as received

柯受恩君您好：
臺端於115年9月3日、同年10月2日以電子郵件寫信給本院「司法信箱」請求提供有關刑事案件選任特約通譯、給付報酬數額及刑事訴訟法第99條實施成效評估等資料，說明如下：
一、復臺端115年9月3日、同年10月2日以電子郵件投書本院「司法信箱」之意見（案件編號：11509030004、11510020001）。
二、本院受理臺端司法信箱意見，為確認臺端是否具有申請前揭資料等政府資訊之主體資格，爰依政府資訊公開法（下稱政資法）第12條第1項規定，延長決定准駁期間，並已於115年9月22日先以司法信箱答復臺端本件尚待確認與申請要件是否相符，合先敘明。
三、按外國人，以其本國法令未限制中華民國國民申請提供其政府資訊者為限，亦得依本法申請之，政資法第9條第2項定有明文。臺端自陳為加拿大籍之外國人，依該項規定，以臺端本國法令未限制中華民國國民申請提供其政府資訊為限，臺端始得依政資法申請我國政府提供政府資訊（即平等互惠原則）。故本院自應參考與我國中央政府相當之加拿大聯邦相關規定，以判斷臺端是否符合申請提供我國政府資訊之要件。
四、依我國外交部駐加拿大代表處查復結果，加拿大聯邦「資訊取得法（Access to Information Act）」第4條第1、2項及「資訊取得法權利延伸命令第一號（Access to Information Act Extension Order, No. 1）」第2條規定，加拿大公民、永久居民及身處加拿大境內之外國人，均得申請加拿大聯邦政府機關所控制之政府紀錄；另若干加拿大聯邦機關公開資訊取得作業說明，皆提及非加拿大公民或永久居民且身處加拿大境外之外國人，雖「不得以本人名義直接提出申請」，惟得授權加拿大公民、永久居民或身處加拿大境內之人代表提出申請。準此，僅「我國境內」之外國人得申請本院所持有之政府資訊，至「我國境外」之外國人雖不得以本人名義提出申請，惟於「加拿大聯邦機關公開資訊取得作業說明」准許申請之範圍內，得授權我國國民、永久居民或在我國境內之人代表提出申請。
五、臺端於115年9月3日、同年10月2日以電子郵件投書本院「司法信箱」之意見，既表明臺端現非居住於我國境內，則臺端以本人名義依政資法向本院申請提供政府資訊，依上開說明，即不具申請主體資格，不得依政資法向本院申請提供政府資訊。臺端所請提供有關刑事案件選任特約通譯、給付報酬數額及刑事訴訟法第99條實施成效評估等資料，礙難准許。
六、如臺端不服本書函，應於本書函送達次日起30日內，向本院訴願審議委員會提起訴願。
感謝您的來信！祝您萬事如意　司法院司法行政廳　敬復

English (working translation by the author)

Mr Ko Shou-en (柯受恩): On 3 September and 2 October 2026 you wrote to this Yuan’s Judicial Mailbox by email asking for data on the appointment of contract interpreters in criminal cases, the amounts paid to them, and the evaluation of the effect of Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We reply as follows.
1. This replies to your messages of 3 September and 2 October 2026 (case numbers 11509030004 and 11510020001).
2. On receiving your messages, and in order to confirm whether you have standing to apply for the government information requested, this Yuan extended the period for its decision under Article 12(1) of the Freedom of Government Information Law (“the Law”) and told you through the mailbox on 22 September 2026 that the matter awaited confirmation of whether the application met the statutory requirements.
3. Under Article 9(2) of the Law, a foreign national may apply for government information only where the law of his own country does not restrict nationals of the Republic of China from applying for its government information (the principle of reciprocity). You state that you are a Canadian national; you may therefore apply under the Law only if Canadian law does not so restrict ROC nationals. This Yuan accordingly looked to the provisions of Canada’s federal government, as the counterpart of our central government, to decide whether you meet the requirements.
4. According to the reply of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ representative office in Canada, section 4(1)–(2) of Canada’s Access to Information Act and section 2 of the Access to Information Act Extension Order, No. 1 allow Canadian citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals present in Canada to apply for records under the control of federal government institutions; and the published guidance of several federal institutions states that a foreign national who is neither a citizen nor a permanent resident and who is outside Canada “may not apply directly in his own name,” but may authorise a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or a person present in Canada to apply on his behalf. Accordingly, only foreign nationals “within our country” may apply for government information held by this Yuan; a foreign national “outside our country” may not apply in his own name, but may, within the scope that the Canadian guidance permits, authorise a national of our country, a permanent resident, or a person within our country to apply on his behalf.
5. Since your messages of 3 September and 2 October 2026 state that you are not currently residing within our country, an application by you in your own name under the Law does not, for the reasons above, meet the requirement of standing, and you may not apply to this Yuan under the Law in your own name. Your request for data on the appointment of contract interpreters in criminal cases, the amounts paid, and the evaluation of the effect of Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore cannot be granted.
6. If you do not accept this letter, you may file an administrative appeal with this Yuan’s Appeal Review Committee within 30 days of the day after service.
Thank you for your letter. With best wishes — Department of Judicial Administration, Judicial Yuan.

2. Ministry of Justice — transfer memorandum (移文單) of 3 November 2026, 部人權決字第11502525550號

What it is: a numbered transfer memorandum from the Ministry of Justice to the Judicial Yuan, copied to me, moving to the Judicial Yuan the matters raised in two emails of 20 and 21 October 2026 that the Premier’s electronic mailbox had forwarded to the Ministry. It is a routing document, not a decision: it records that the four matters fall within the Judicial Yuan’s authority, asks the Judicial Yuan to examine and handle them, and asks to be informed of the outcome; the part within the Ministry’s own remit, it notes, has been separately referred. No reply from me was required. Scan of the memorandum (PDF, one page; the contact officer’s name, telephone and email are omitted): MOJ_transfer_memo_2026-11-03.pdf.

Chinese, as received

法務部　移文單
發文日期：中華民國115年11月3日
發文字號：部人權決字第11502525550號
受文者：柯受恩君
速別：普通件　附件：如文
主旨：有關行政院院長電子信箱小組於115年10月20、21日轉來柯受恩君（Ross Cline，加拿大籍）之電子郵件（文號：040-115028215、040-115033190號），敬請就說明一所示大院權責事項惠予查處，並副知本部辦理情形。
說明：
一、旨揭電子郵件所提關於刑事訴訟法第99條施行後法院實際選任通譯之統計資料、不通曉國語之被告未獲通譯協助情形之申訴及統計機制、於筆錄及判決書固定記載有無通譯以及建立通譯品質查核機制等事項，涉及大院職權。至於本部業管部分，已另行查處。
二、檢附旨揭電子郵件。
正本：司法院
副本：柯受恩君、本部法制司（含附件）

English (working translation by the author)

Ministry of Justice — Transfer Memorandum
Date: 3 November 2026
Reference: 部人權決字第11502525550號
Addressee: Mr Ko Shou-en (Ross Cline)
Priority: ordinary. Attachments: as stated.
Subject: Concerning the emails of Mr Ross Cline (Canadian national) forwarded by the Premier’s electronic-mailbox team of the Executive Yuan on 20 and 21 October 2026 (case numbers 040-115028215 and 040-115033190): the Judicial Yuan is respectfully requested to examine and handle the matters within its authority set out in paragraph 1 of the Explanation, and to inform this Ministry of how they are handled.
Explanation:
1. The matters raised in the said emails — statistics on the courts’ actual appointment of interpreters since Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came into force; a complaint and statistics mechanism for cases in which defendants who do not understand Mandarin did not receive interpreter assistance; fixed recording in hearing transcripts and judgments of whether an interpreter was present; and the establishment of a mechanism to verify the quality of interpretation — fall within the authority of the Judicial Yuan. As to the part within this Ministry’s own remit, it has been separately referred for examination and handling.
2. The said emails are attached.
Original to: the Judicial Yuan. Copies to: Mr Ko Shou-en; this Ministry’s Department of Legal System (with attachments).

The two documents were received by email on 29 October and 5 November 2026. The entries about the information request elsewhere on this page remain as written; this section adds the documents themselves.