Constitutional Court: "Restriction on Lawyer's Meeting with Detainee Before Case Acceptance is Constitutional"

Constitutional Court: "Confirmation of Seniority Possible Even with Contact Blocking Facilities"
Justices Lee Seon-ae, Lee Seok-tae, Lee Eun-ae, Lee Young-jin, Kim Ki-young: "Confidentiality Necessary"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok and the justices of the Constitutional Court are waiting for the start of the constitutional complaint ruling at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that a legal provision excluding 'lawyers intending to act as civil or administrative litigation representatives' from the exceptions allowing visitation with inmates in places without partitions does not violate the Constitution.

It means that before being appointed as litigation representatives, lawyers must use general visitation rooms equipped with contact-blocking facilities when meeting inmates.

The Constitutional Court announced on the 3rd that it dismissed a constitutional complaint claiming that the provision in the "Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Execution of Sentences and Treatment of Inmates" infringes on lawyers' freedom to perform their profession and other fundamental rights, with a 4 (dismissal) to 5 (acceptance) vote among the justices.

Although more justices considered the challenged provision unconstitutional, the number did not meet the required quorum for a ruling. The Constitutional Court Act stipulates that at least six justices must agree to accept a constitutional complaint.

The petitioner, lawyer A, filed a constitutional complaint after the prison denied a visitation request submitted as a litigation representative for B, who was incarcerated in 2018, allowing only general visitation in places equipped with contact-blocking facilities.

Article 58, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Execution of Sentences basically requires inmate visitation to occur in places with partitions or similar installations but provides exceptions for visits with 'lawyers acting as representatives in litigation cases.'

Justices Lee Seon-ae, Lee Seok-tae, Lee Eun-ae, Lee Young-jin, and Kim Ki-young expressed dissenting opinions, stating, "The stage when an inmate appoints a representative is the starting point for preparing a trial, so it is necessary to provide physical conditions that allow sufficient information exchange and communication while ensuring confidentiality," deeming the provision unconstitutional.

However, Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok and Justices Lee Jong-seok, Moon Hyung-bae, and Lee Mi-sun judged that lawyers intending to become litigation representatives can sufficiently confirm the inmate's appointment even with contact-blocking facilities, and that sacrificing public interests such as the safety and order maintenance of correctional facilities is unnecessary.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.