News 2021：Richardson Reports（理查森報告）

Author：Michael Richardson（美國獨立撰稿人）
※ Excerpt aus：https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/author/richardsonreports/



—（February 24, 2021）Denham has been given until March 16 by the court to explain why she is protecting the identity two thesis examiners. …The Information Review Tribunal has now ruled that anyone in the world may make information requests.
大意：信息審查法庭要求ICO限期解釋為何要保護兩位審查委員的身分，並裁定世界上任何人都可以提出公開資訊的請求。

—（March 27, 2021）Denham has defended Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen from public scrutiny by arguing that Tsai's privacy right trumps the need for verification of her 1984 University of London PhD degree.……Denham says she has been paying attention to the news about the thesis. “Separately, the Commissioner has news reports of the President taking court action against those who have questioned the validity of her thesis.” “The Commissioner is thus persuaded that the validity of the thesis has been demonstrated by the above, and that releasing the names of the examiners and the requested date is not necessary.”
大意：ICO專員表示，捍衛蔡英文總統的隱私比驗證她是否於1984取得博士學位更重要；另外根據台灣論文門訴訟的進展，已認定論文沒問題，無需揭露考官姓名和口試日期。

—（April 15, 2021）（Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner for the United Kingdom,）maintains that disclosure of the examiner identities is not necessary because the validity President Tsai's PhD thesis“has been met to a extremely large degree”by three facts: the thesis is online, the thesis is listed in an index document, and the University of London claims it holds records of the viva examination. …Denham, relying on University of London assertions rather than on official records or correspondence. …however, public relations statements and news reports do not constitute, in any manner, academic authentication or actual verification of a PhD thesis viva examination; nor does the indictment of Professor Peng constitute academic authentication or actual verification of the viva examination.
大意：ICO專員僅是單純相信倫敦大學的說法——（2019）在線論文、（1985）研究索引、以及有論文口試記錄的公關聲明。然而（倫敦大學）公關聲明和（LSE官網）新聞報導並不算是學術認證，台灣檢方對於彭文正的起訴也沒辦法證明什麼。

—（April 30, 2021）The back and forth email exchange…discusses what could be released without Tsai's consent from her 278 page LSE student file…“It appears from her student file that MJE [Michael Elliott] and Professor Leonard H Leigh examined President's Tsai's thesis in October 1983.” …Professor Leigh, who taught criminal law at LSE, was eligible to have served as an internal examiner but not as an external examiner. The principle, to prevent academic fraud, is for at least one member of a doctoral examination viva panel to be from an external educational institution.
大意：LSE法律團隊負責人在蔡英文並未授權的狀況下，向台灣官員透露兩位口試委員為Michael J. Elliott（蔡英文的指導老師）和Leonard H. Leigh（LSE的刑法教授）——然而為了防弊，英國大學通常規定至少要有一名論文口試委員來自校外。

—（May 29, 2021）Two Freedom of Information requests, one in 2019 and the second in 2021, to LSE for the identities of the thesis examiners elicited the same answer from Rachael Maguire, Records Manager, that LSE did not have the examiner names. An Internal Review by LSE confirmed the school could not answer the request. School Secretary Louise Nadal stated on May 26, 2021, that “the School does not hold the information you have requested.”However, what Nadal either did not know or was deceptive about, is that Kevin Haynes, “Head of Legal Team” at LSE, has compiled a 278 page file from President Tsai's student days that is indexed and carefully numbered.
大意：2019、2021年兩次詢問口試委員身分，LSE資訊與紀錄經理和學校秘書長都表示校方並未持有相關資料，但是LSE法律團隊負責人卻指出蔡英文的學生檔案高達278 頁，內有口試委員資料。

—（September 21, 2021）United Kingdom Information Review Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley, writing for a three-member panel, upheld the University of London's secrecy about the identity of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis examiners. ……The three-member Tribunal reached a decision on September 13th:“There is a broader public interest in the legitimacy of President Tsai's PhD. …We find that the legitimate interest can be achieved by the University's confirmation that there is a written record of the names of the examiners and of the date that they signed approval of the thesis. …It is not reasonably necessary for the names  or the date to be released. …Further, we find that there is sufficient evidence already in the public domain to satisfy Mr. Richardson's or the public's concerns about whether or not President Tsai was awarded a PhD. …The University has publicly confirmed that the degree was correctly awarded and that it holds records of the viva and the pass list in relation to President Tsai and the fact that the thesis appeared in the IALS list of legal theses successfully completed for postgraduate degrees published in 1985.”
大意：信息審查法庭的三人小組於9月13日裁定蔡英文一方擁有更廣泛的公共利益，沒有必要公布口試委員身分或批准論文通過的日期，因為透過校方來確認是否具有相關記錄即可，而且有1985年IALS索引等公開資訊可供證明。

—（October 16, 2021）An appeal application has now raised three legal issues for review. The first issue……“Thesis examiners are the gatekeepers of a PhD degree requiring their exclusion from any personal data exemption as they are in fact the qualification certification and structurally essential to the integrity of the University degree, overriding any individual privacy concern.”……The second issue……“Appellant is not only denied by the Tribunal, acting in his behalf, of the identity of the examiners, but any information at all including the number of non-disclosed examiners, whether or not they were external examiners, or even the date of their signed approval which does not reveal their identity in any manner.”……The third legal issue……“The University of London has provided differing accounts for the absence of the thesis from its collection. The University has not provided Appellant, despite a FOI request and an Internal Review request, any bibliographic, catalogue or acquisition data of the thesis, nor has the University established with verifiable documentation the presence of the thesis in the library collection at any time.”
大意：上訴高等行政法院的三大理由：1. 論文審查員的資格正當性應凌駕於個人隱私問題之上，2. 不涉及身分問題的審查員人數、簽署通過日期都不該被隱瞞，3. 法庭未能適當調查圖書館相關問題的矛盾現象。

—（November 22, 2021）President Tsai will be unable to see Peng locked up while he remains in the United States. The Repubic of China in-exile is not recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation and has no extradition treaty with the ROC. Further, the charge against Peng, criminal defamation, does not exist in America, the home of free speech where defamation is a civil tort not a criminal offense. ROC prosecutors will not likely seek some sort of special agreement to detain Peng as that would open the door to a federal courtroom in the United States for the newsman. The prosecutors are happy with their exiled Chinese legal system that lacks juries and allows judges to be switched in sensitive cases. ……Litigation under the Freedom of Information Act is ongoing in two cases involving UL now before United Kingdom courts and the Information Commissioner is investigating statements made by LSE about the thesis.
大意：滯美未歸的彭文正無法根據引渡協議返台，否則將引起美國司法的介入；崇尚言論自由的美國不會將誹謗視為刑事犯罪，而僅是民事侵權；缺乏陪審團的台灣法院允許在敏感案件中更換法官的現象也不單純。在英國法院和ICO，針對倫敦大學和LSE的訴訟與調查仍在進行中。

—（December 14, 2021）The LSE, in response to a May 2021 Freedom of Information request, conducted an Internal Review and declared it lacked records that identified the PhD thesis examiners. Six months earlier Kevin Haynes, the LSE Head of Legal Team, provided the initials of one purported examiner and the name of a second to the ROC Ministry of Justice in a criminal investigation……. Although Haynes is the Head of Legal Team at LSE he is not an attorney. Consequently Haynes is not subject to regulatory discipline if he gave false information……. "The student record had been examined and no definitive record of the examiners had been found. Whilst one document indicated that a particular individual might have been an examiner, the LSE had no way of cross-checking whether that individual had in fact performed that role – and the LSE considered it unlikely that they would have done so."
大意：根據LSE自行檢查的結果，蔡英文的學生記錄中沒有口試委員的確切記錄！雖有一份文件表明某人可能是考官，但無法確認此人是否有履行職責。這與LSE法律團隊負責人先前向台灣官員透露兩位考官的訊息相矛盾，但因他不是律師，提供虛假信息也不會受到處分。

—（December 18, 2021）Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver has rejected the dog-ate-my-homework story of the University of London that the PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen was lost-in-the-library.……"The appellant says that the absence of the original thesis from any of the libraries, as required by the University’s rules, indicates that there was no thesis at the time. Having viewed the emails from the libraries and the video from Dr. Peng, it does appear that none of the libraries have a record of the thesis being provided at the time the PhD was awarded in 1984. We accept that the explanation provided by the University that the thesis had been lost or mis-shelved may not be correct, as there is no catalogue or microfilm record of the original thesis. "……The appellant is a Taiwanese-American…….
大意：另有質疑者向行政法庭提告，而法官基於缺乏論文的入館紀錄和微縮膠卷，表示不認同圖書館丟失的說法。