Criminal Presiding Judge Also Handling Civil Cases... Dilemma of Small Courts and Branches

Published 23 Oct.2024 13:53(KST)

Not a Reassignment Reason by Regulation
But Concerns Over Trust Decline, Measures Needed

Controversy has arisen after it was revealed that the presiding judge in a civil lawsuit filed by the victim of a criminal case, in which the defendant was acquitted, is the same judge who presided over the earlier criminal case. In a small district court, the judge who was previously in the criminal division was transferred to the civil division through task allocation, and was assigned as the presiding judge for the civil case related to the criminal case they had overseen.

[Image source=Beomryul Newspaper]

The victim, feeling burdened by the fact that the same judge who acquitted the defendant in the criminal case was presiding over the civil case, requested a reassignment, but the request was denied. The reason given was that the request did not meet the criteria for reassignment according to regulations, and even if reassignment were granted, the case would inevitably be assigned to another panel including a judge who had handled the criminal case.

Within the legal community, there are opinions that the court system needs to seek measures to resolve the issue of ‘the same judge handling related cases involving the same parties.’ On the other hand, some argue that leaving such decisions to judicial discretion, as is currently done, is the best approach to avoid problems such as forum shopping or delays in case processing.

Request for Reassignment Denied

In the first half of 2021, Mr. A filed a criminal complaint against his neighbor Mr. B, accusing him of defamation through an online media outlet. Mr. A also filed a civil damages lawsuit against Mr. B in the same court.

Both the first and second trials in the criminal case acquitted Mr. B. However, in February of this year, due to a regular judicial personnel reshuffle, Judge C, who had presided over the criminal appeal, was assigned as the presiding judge in the related civil case.

Mr. A’s side requested a reassignment of the panel, stating that “considering the reality that the claim in the civil case is strongly influenced by the judgment in the related criminal case, it is burdensome to have the same presiding judge for the civil trial.” However, the civil panel rejected the request, citing that it was not a valid reason for reassignment under Supreme Court regulations.

No Separate Regulations, Left to Court Discretion

In fact, whether to reassign cases when a judge who handled a criminal case is assigned to a related civil case is left to the discretion of each court, as there are no separate provisions in the Supreme Court regulations.

The Civil and Criminal Procedure Act only lists ‘a judge involved in a previous trial (lower court)’ as a ground for disqualification, but does not consider a judge who handled related cases as disqualified. There is also a 1985 Supreme Court decision (1985Du1) stating that even if a judge who handled a criminal case is assigned to the civil panel of a related case, it does not constitute grounds for judicial recusal.

In smaller courts, where there are only one or two civil and criminal panels, even if reassignment occurs, the case may be reassigned to another panel including a judge who handled the criminal case, making reassignment effectively futile.

However, reassignment is not impossible. Sometimes, after discussions by the Judicial Task Allocation Committee, the necessity of reassignment is determined. If reassignment is decided, the case may be sent to a ‘summary panel’ with fewer cases or assigned to a separate panel. But most small courts lack sufficient reserve judicial personnel, making this difficult.

Potential for Abuse in Forum Shopping

Legal experts suggest the need for unified standards. A lawyer who previously served as a branch chief said, “Such cases are common in small courts or branches. Ideally, judges should recuse themselves in these situations, but no one can force them to do so.” He added, “From the parties’ perspective, it is difficult to accept the trial outcome under these circumstances. This can negatively affect not only the parties but also the judges themselves, potentially undermining trust in the judiciary.” He further stated, “While large courts can easily assign cases to other civil panels, it is difficult to devise solutions in small courts, so the Supreme Court should seek measures.”

On the other hand, some argue against further subdividing reassignment regulations. They warn that more detailed rules on reassignment, recusal, or disqualification could be exploited for forum shopping, and frequent reassignment could slow case processing and increase judges’ workload.

A chief judge at the Seoul Central District Court said, “If regulations are introduced, some courts may lose rationality and flexibility in task allocation and panel management. Deciding reassignment based on the discretion and agreement within the court, as is currently done, is best.” He added, “Even if the same judge handles both civil and criminal cases with the same facts, it is not problematic. Civil and criminal procedures have completely different evidentiary rules, so an acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee that the defendant will be exempt from civil liability for damages.”