民事非法证据排除的规范解释与实务观察  

The Normative Interpretation and Practical Observation of the Exclusion of Civil Illegal Evidence

作　　者：周翠[1] Zhou Cui

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院

出　　处：《中国法学》2020年第3期223-243,共21页China Legal Science

基　　金：2016年度国家社科基金项目"当事人平等原则与民事证明减轻体系的建构"(项目批准号:16BFX094)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：最高人民法院通过《民诉法司法解释》第106条和第104条对民事证据的合法性作出全新诠释,其分为证据收集合法和证据评价合法两个层面,前者并非后者的必要条件。依照《民诉法司法解释》第106条的规范意旨,仅当取证方式违反法律禁止性规定并严重侵害人格权或基本诉讼权利时,法官才得将证据资料排除在证据评价的范围之外。作为概括条款,该规范在"严重侵害"的判断上赋予法官权衡权限。为此,法官应当根据取证违反的不同位阶的法律规范的保护目的和所侵犯的权利的价值区别情况采取不同的审查基准和密度,并尤其应当考量如下因素:被侵权人是否同意、取证出于故意、非善意还是偶然所得、举证人是否存在证明困难、是否处于正当防卫或紧急状态、是否存在更缓和的取证手段、利用证据手段是否会给被侵害人造成持续或再次侵犯等。Under articles 106 and 104 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law,the Supreme People's Court of China interpreted the ' legitimacy of evidence'again,and held that'legitimacy of evidence should be classified into'legitimacy of collection'and ' legitimacy of evaluation'and the former was not the prerequisite of the latter.According to the legal purpose of article 106 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law,only when the method of collecting evidence violates the provision under the law and infringes upon a personality right or a fundamental right seriously,a judge may preclude the evidence obtained thereby in the trial.As a general clause,article 106 entitles a judge to make discretion on ' serious infringement'.In this situation,a judge should adopt different review standard and density according to the protective purpose of the violated provision and the value of the infringed right,and especially consider the following factors:whether the infringed consent,whether the evidence is obtained intentionally,in bad faith or by chance,whether the evidence is difficult to prove,whether in justifiable defense or emergency condition,whether there is a more moderate method,whether the method of collecting evidence will cause continuous or another infringement to the victim,etc.

关 键 词：非法证据排除 证据禁止 证据收集 证据评价 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]