Issue Concerning the Validity of an Order Suspending the Taking of Evidence by a Single Judge
At a certain Provincial Court, there were only two judges assigned to sit in criminal cases. Subsequently, one of the judges went on sick leave. The remaining judge then proceeded to sit alone and conduct the examination of the defendant’s witnesses in a criminal case where the defendant had been charged with robbery and causing bodily harm to the owner of the property. After the defendant’s evidence had been taken, the judge ordered that no further evidence be heard, on the ground that the case was already sufficiently complete for determination, and then fixed a date for the delivery of judgment.
The legal issue is whether such order of the court was lawful.
In principle, criminal cases of this nature are ordinarily heard by a duly constituted bench in accordance with the law governing judicial organization. However, the order directing that the taking of further evidence be suspended is not regarded as a final determination of the merits of the case, nor does it amount to a decision conclusively disposing of any substantive issue in dispute between the parties. It is merely an interlocutory procedural order made in the course of trial management.
Accordingly, where the order in question is only an order for the conduct of proceedings and does not constitute a final adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties, a single judge is empowered to issue such order under the relevant provision of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice.
Therefore, the court’s order suspending further evidence in these circumstances was lawful. This is because the order was not a judgment or a decisive ruling on the merits, but merely a procedural direction which a single judge was competent to make. This position is consistent with Supreme Court Decisions Nos. 751–752/2