Case on Immediate Appeal Filing Period under the Habeas Corpus Act

[27-2(A) KCCR 461, 2013Hun-Ka21, September 24, 2015]

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that the portion of Article 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act which prescribes “three days” as the period for habeas corpus petitioners to file an immediate appeal against rulings that dismiss their habeas corpus petitions violates the complainant’s right to trial.

Background of the Case

(1) Inmate Lee ○-Sik, who has been held in Maeumae Hospital located in Seobuk-gu, Cheonan-si for paranoid schizophrenia since May 8, 2009, filed a habeas corpus petition to seek relief with the Cheonan Branch of the Daejeon District Court in August 2012, claiming that his confinement by the custodian (head/administrator of the hospital) was unlawful. However, the Cheonan Branch dismissed the petition on November 1, 2012 (2012In4, Cheonan Branch).

(2) The inmate was served the document of the court’s decision dismissing his habeas corpus petition on November 5, 2012 and requested an immediate appeal he drafted on the same day to be served via mail to a nurse at the Maeumae Hospital. This application for immediate appeal, thereafter, reached the Cheonan Branch on November 9, 2012.

(3) The Cheonan Branch, while reviewing the case involving the aforementioned immediate appeal (2012In-Ra1, Daejeon District Court), filed ex officio for constitutional review of Article 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act with the Constitutional Court on June 20, 2013, on grounds that the three-day period for immediate appeal violates the right to trial,

personal liberty, and equality rights.

Subject Matter of Review

The subject matter of review in this case is the constitutionality of the portion of Article 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act (enacted as Act No. 8724, Dec. 21, 2007) which provides “three days” for a habeas corpus petitioner to file an immediate appeal (hereinafter the “Provision at Issue”).

Habeas Corpus Act (Amended by Act No. 8724, Dec. 21, 2007)

Article 15 (Appeal)

A habeas corpus petitioner or custodian, who is dissatisfied with a ruling under Article 13, may make an immediate appeal against such ruling within three days of the ruling.

Summary of the Decision

The habeas corpus petitioners defined by the Habeas Corpus Act are those confined in a detention facility against their will, and their personal liberties are restricted. Therefore, they cannot, by themselves, submit an immediate appeal against the ruling that rejected their petition for habeas corpus, and filing it with external assistance may not be so feasible when it is hard to expect goodwill and cooperation from the outside people. It is also difficult to consider three days to be sufficient for submitting an immediate appeal by mail, given the time required for its drafting and for the mail to be sent and delivered to the competent court.

Habeas corpus petitioners are entitled to representation by court-appointedcounsels according to the Habeas Corpus Act, but it is hard to readily conclude that the right to counsel includes the right to appeal. Even if the right to appeal is considered a part of the right to counsel, the three-day period for filing an immediate appeal is still too limited in that

the extension of the statutory filing period and exceptional provisions such as Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act are not likely to be applied. Petition for retrial may be an alternative, but since its concept differs from that of an immediate appeal, the possibility of a retrial petition in itself cannot justify the excessive restriction on the period of immediate appeal.

Furthermore, allowing for a little longer period than the current three days for filing immediate appeal is not likely to serve as a major impediment to achieving the legislative purpose of the Provision at Issue-to promptly decide on the matter of law regarding the position of inmates. The Provision at Issue, therefore, infringes on the inmate’s right to trial.