Lawyer Wu Junli said that the court’s detention court had granted leave, but questioned whether the prosecutor still forced the detention

Former Taitung County Magistrate Wu Junli failed to appear in the custody court of the Taitung District Court today on the grounds that he was hospitalized in Kaohsiung. Prosecutors went to the hospital to arrest him. After arriving at the Taitung District Prosecutor's Office in the evening, he requested an interrogation. Wu Junli's legal team stated that Wu Junli was hospitalized for myocarditis and was awaiting surgery. The court had agreed to take leave, but the prosecutors still went to the hospital to take him away, raising questions about law enforcement procedures.

Wu Junli's legal team stated that Wu Junli was hospitalized for myocarditis and had applied for leave from the local court and was approved. During the period, the court agreed to hold a video conference hearing at 10 a.m., but the prosecutor disagreed when the court opened. Wu Jun immediately expressed his willingness to ask for leave from the hospital to attend the court hearing, and accepted the judge's arrangement to open the court at 9 p.m. on the 26th. Under this circumstance, the prosecutor still insisted on going to the hospital to carry out the arrest. Is the relevant procedure legal and whether it deliberately created the false impression of not showing up.

The legal team said that Wu Junli is currently hospitalized due to myocarditis and still needs surgical treatment. Faced with such a physical condition, the prosecutor did not fully understand the patient's condition before performing the procedure? And without obtaining a professional assessment from the medical team on whether he can leave the hospital, how will the related medical risks and follow-up care be arranged? It is necessary for the prosecutor to explain these issues to the society.

The lawyer emphasized that Wu Junli did not refuse to face justice, but had asked for leave from the court while he was hospitalized. He was not in danger of fleeing and had arrangements for a court hearing in the evening. That being the case, why is it necessary to take such an urgent approach when the medical situation has yet to be clarified?

The legal team pointed out that prosecutors forcibly removed the patient from the hospital without professional evaluation and consent from the medical team. The patient's condition at that time did not meet the discharge criteria, and forcibly interrupting treatment would face extremely high life risks. This move completely ignores the life safety of the medical profession and patients, and ignores the medical responsibility of the hospital; because everyone knows that as long as you step out of the hospital, the consequences will be borne by the medical team, but the prosecutor obviously does not care about the full medical responsibility. Once an accident occurs, it is tantamount to forcibly shirking serious life-threatening risks and responsibilities to the subsequent judges and judicial system.