【摘要】：在大陸法系和英美法系多國(guó)中,為保護(hù)特定利益和關(guān)系,都將律師拒證權(quán)作為證據(jù)規(guī)則加以明確。目前,律師拒證制度在我國(guó)還沒(méi)有明確確立,同時(shí)對(duì)廣大律師是不是享有拒證權(quán)力也還沒(méi)有規(guī)定,在實(shí)務(wù)界和理論學(xué)界,律師拒證權(quán)力這一問(wèn)題受到了廣泛的關(guān)注。我國(guó)律師拒證權(quán)制度的缺失導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中律師辯護(hù)權(quán)利無(wú)法充分行使。尤其是在刑事訴訟中,律師被偵查機(jī)關(guān)、追訴機(jī)關(guān)強(qiáng)制要求就其與犯罪嫌疑人、被告人之間的秘密交流涉及的信息如隱私、司法機(jī)關(guān)未掌握的犯罪事實(shí)等作證,以實(shí)現(xiàn)司法機(jī)關(guān)盡快查清案件事實(shí)的目的。如果律師被強(qiáng)制作證,將產(chǎn)生許多不利后果,如侵犯當(dāng)事人的隱私,打破律師與當(dāng)事人建立的忠誠(chéng)信任關(guān)系,妨礙犯罪嫌疑人、被告人和律師辯護(hù)基本權(quán)利的實(shí)現(xiàn),不利于保護(hù)人權(quán),影響律師執(zhí)業(yè)活動(dòng)的開(kāi)展。導(dǎo)致刑事訴訟盲目追求實(shí)體正義,忽視程序正義,不利于多元化訴訟價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn)。雖然我國(guó)尚未建立律師拒證制度,但與律師拒證制度相關(guān)的立法早就存在。如《律師法》38條規(guī)定的律師職業(yè)群體的保密義務(wù)、《刑事訴訟法》第60條規(guī)定的律師應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)作為知情者的社會(huì)人的作證義務(wù)、《刑事訴訟法》第46條規(guī)定的律師保密權(quán)利、《刑法》第306條的律師偽證罪和第310條包庇罪的規(guī)定。基于我國(guó)立法上對(duì)律師權(quán)利與義務(wù)設(shè)置的不均衡,辯護(hù)律師進(jìn)退兩難。在律師選擇承擔(dān)保密義務(wù)后,可能面臨司法機(jī)關(guān)包庇罪、律師偽證罪等罪名的無(wú)理追究。現(xiàn)行規(guī)定導(dǎo)致的主要問(wèn)題有:法律之間對(duì)律師保密行為的規(guī)定存在沖突,律師面臨作證義務(wù)和職業(yè)道德沖突難題;司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)律師拒絕就犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的秘密信息作證的行為追究律師責(zé)任,律師面臨偽證罪或包庇罪的風(fēng)險(xiǎn);律師被強(qiáng)制作證進(jìn)退兩難,即便作證,證言也喪失一定可靠性。構(gòu)建律師拒證權(quán)制度要把握全局,整體規(guī)劃,以“利益衡量、合理借鑒、嚴(yán)格限制”為指導(dǎo)原則,在制度上建立一個(gè)適合我國(guó)的相對(duì)合理的律師拒證制度,減少律師拒證制度在我國(guó)建立可能產(chǎn)生的負(fù)面效應(yīng),如為案件事實(shí)的查清制造一定的障礙;降低訴訟效率,增加訴訟成本;產(chǎn)生律師濫用拒證權(quán)利的現(xiàn)象等。在具體制度設(shè)計(jì)方面要進(jìn)一步完善,包括對(duì)律師拒證權(quán)制度的權(quán)利主體、保護(hù)對(duì)象、保護(hù)范圍、例外情形、法律責(zé)任進(jìn)行規(guī)定。同時(shí)要有相對(duì)成熟的配套機(jī)制,如律師豁免權(quán)制度,對(duì)律師某些情形下的言論進(jìn)行免責(zé);通過(guò)證據(jù)開(kāi)示制度對(duì)律師掌握的當(dāng)事人信息能否進(jìn)入訴訟程序進(jìn)行判斷;建立律師自治體制,提升律師自身道德修養(yǎng),強(qiáng)化為當(dāng)事人服務(wù)的理念。
[Abstract]:In many countries of civil law system and common law system, in order to protect specific interests and relations, lawyers' right to refuse evidence is defined as evidence rule. At present, the system of lawyer refusing certificate has not been clearly established in our country, at the same time, there is no stipulation on whether the vast number of lawyers enjoy the power of refusing to testify. In the field of practice and theory, the problem of lawyer's power of refusing to testify has been paid more and more attention. The lack of the lawyer's right of refusing to testify in our country leads to the lawyer's right of defense unable to be fully exercised in judicial practice. In particular, in criminal proceedings, lawyers are required by the investigative and prosecution authorities to give evidence on the information involved in secret exchanges between them and the suspects and defendants, such as privacy, criminal facts not mastered by the judicial authorities, and so on. In order to achieve the judicial organs as soon as possible to find out the facts of the case. If a lawyer is forced to testify, there will be many adverse consequences, such as violating the privacy of the client, breaking the relationship of loyalty and trust established between the lawyer and the client, impeding the realization of the basic right of the suspect, the accused and the lawyer to defend. It is not conducive to the protection of human rights and affects the development of lawyers' practice activities. It leads to the blind pursuit of substantive justice and neglect of procedural justice in criminal proceedings, which is not conducive to the realization of pluralistic litigation value. Although our country has not yet established the system of lawyers' refusal to license, but the legislation related to the system of refusal of lawyers' license has existed for a long time. In the case of the obligation of confidentiality of the professional group of lawyers as stipulated in Article 38 of the Law on lawyers, the lawyer under Article 60 of the Code of Criminal procedure shall bear the obligation of testifying as a social person who knows, and Article 46 of the Code of Criminal procedure provides for the protection of lawyers Secret right, the crime of perjury of lawyer in article 306 of the Criminal Law and the crime of covering up in article 310. Based on the imbalance between the rights and obligations of lawyers in our legislation, defense lawyers are in a dilemma. After lawyers choose to assume the duty of confidentiality, they may face unreasonable prosecution of crimes of judicial protection and perjury. The main problems caused by the current regulations are: there are conflicts between laws concerning the confidentiality of lawyers, lawyers are faced with difficulties in the duty to testify and conflicts in professional ethics, and the judicial organs refuse to deal with criminal suspects with regard to lawyers, The defendant's behavior of testifying with secret information investigates the lawyer's responsibility, and the lawyer is faced with the risk of perjury or concealment; the lawyer is forced to testify in a dilemma, even if he testifies, the testimony also loses a certain degree of reliability. To construct the system of lawyers' right of refusing to testify, we should grasp the overall situation, plan as a whole, take the principle of "interests weigh, reasonable use for reference, strictly restrict" as the guiding principle, and set up a relatively reasonable system of lawyers refusing to testify in the system suitable for our country. To reduce the possible negative effects of the establishment of the lawyer's refusal system in China, such as to create certain obstacles for the investigation of the facts of the case, to reduce the efficiency of litigation, to increase the costs of litigation, and to produce the phenomenon of lawyers abusing the right of refusing to testify, and so on. The design of the specific system should be further improved, including the regulation of the subject of the right, the object of protection, the scope of protection, the exceptional situation and the legal responsibility of the lawyer's right to refuse to testify. At the same time, there should be a relatively mature supporting mechanism, such as lawyer immunity system, the lawyer under certain circumstances of speech exemption, through the evidence disclosure system to judge whether the client information held by lawyers into the proceedings; Establish the lawyer autonomy system, improve the lawyer's own moral accomplishment, strengthen the idea of serving the client.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 衡靜;成安;;刑事訴訟中律師拒證決策的博弈分析[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2015年09期

2 胡洋奕;;律師保密權(quán)與拒證權(quán)的區(qū)別及制度完善[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年06期

3 邱麗;;淺析我國(guó)刑事訴訟證人拒證權(quán)制度——以修改后的刑事訴訟法為視角[J];法制與社會(huì);2014年05期

4 涂倩筠;;論律師拒證權(quán)[J];現(xiàn)代商貿(mào)工業(yè);2012年19期

5 向雅萍;;論我國(guó)刑事證人拒證權(quán)的制度構(gòu)建——從刑訴法修正草案入手[J];湖北經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

6 孫笑俠;徐顯明;季衛(wèi)東;嚴(yán)存生;林來(lái)梵;李瑜青;龍宗智;徐昕;李其瑞;翁曉斌;郭星華;童之偉;劉作翔;張志銘;張騏;劉仁文;張谷;葛洪義;;轉(zhuǎn)型期法治縱論[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

7 丁曉亮;徐華毅;白龍;;律師拒證權(quán)的價(jià)值論[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年34期

8 肖世貴;;律師職業(yè)免證權(quán)淺論[J];河北北方學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

9 吳丹紅;;中國(guó)證據(jù)立法的理想與現(xiàn)實(shí)[J];司法;2008年00期

10 章禮明;;律師拒證權(quán)制度之建構(gòu)[J];廣州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 汪中良;;親屬拒證權(quán)的法文化淵源[N];人民法院報(bào);2016年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 鄒志強(qiáng);刑事證人的職業(yè)拒證權(quán)研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2014年

2 姚婷;論辯護(hù)律師保密特權(quán)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 戰(zhàn)恒;律師拒證權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

4 傅世傳;法治新視野下的律師拒證權(quán)制度研析[D];上海交通大學(xué);2009年

5 謝國(guó)忠;拒證權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：2181407