Taiwan judge releases drugged drivers without bail in separate cases, sparking outrage

Judicial decisions in Changhua County, Taiwan, have drawn public ire following the release without bail of suspects in two separate "drugged driving" cases. The court's handling of these cases has led to accusations of leniency and a lack of accountability.

“

The court's handling of these cases has led to accusations of leniency and a lack of accountability.

In the first incident, a gas delivery driver, identified as Mr. Jiang, was reportedly under the influence of "zombie pills" (etomidate) when he lost control of his vehicle, which was carrying ten gas cylinders, and crashed into a parked car. Prosecutors sought pre-emptive detention, citing the risk of recidivism. However, the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove Mr. Jiang's drug use had reached a level that rendered him unable to drive safely, leading to his release without bail.

“

There was insufficient evidence to prove Mr. Jiang's drug use had reached a level that rendered him unable to drive safely.

The second case involved a fugitive, Mr. Shi, who allegedly ran over and broke both legs of Chen Guoming, the chief of the Puyan precinct, while attempting to flee. A rapid drug test indicated the presence of amphetamines and etomidate. Prosecutors requested his detention, but the judge cited a lack of flight risk and insufficient evidence of intentional ramming, also releasing Mr. Shi without bail. The drug test results were also considered inconclusive for determining impairment.

“

Insufficient evidence of intentional ramming.

These decisions have intensified scrutiny on the judiciary, particularly after it was confirmed by Minister of Justice Cheng Ming-chien that the same judge presided over both cases. The Changhua District Court has faced significant pressure, issuing a statement that individual judicial decisions are based on specific case facts, evidence, and legal provisions, and do not represent the court's overall stance on drugged driving. The court emphasized that these rulings should not be interpreted as opposition to prosecutors or condoning drugged driving.

“

Individual judicial decisions are based on specific case facts, evidence, and legal provisions, and do not represent the court's overall stance on drugged driving.