人民基本權利之保障，無不受到世界各先進國家之重視與積極追求，並以之作為普世價值，及衡量一個國家民主發展的程度。人身自由權與遷徙自由權，為我國憲法所明定之人民基本權利，應予以最大保障，惟仍非不得於合乎憲法第 23 條要件之情形下，對其為必要之限制。 國家債權之實現與法治國原則之維護，均為國家重大之公益目的。公法上金錢給付義務之履行，攸關國家財政歲收之健全及發展建設之推行，其與全體國民之福祉息息相關。前揭義務之強制執行，即在確保國家債權得以實現，俾能順利完成國家建設或其他行政給付；在法治國家，人民負有守法的義務，對違反守法義務之人民，透過強制執行之程序，達到與其履行前揭義務之相同法律效果，以維護法治國公平正義之原則並建立行政法秩序。 　　行政執行法中有關拘提、管收、暫予留置及限制出境等規定，乃係國家執行機關為追求實現前揭兩大公益目的，所採取限制人民人身自由與遷徙自由之執行措施。在確保人民基本權利之前提下，應如何認定其符合憲法第 23 條之形式要件並通過違憲審查之檢驗，以確實取得該等執行措施之合法性與正當性，為本論文之研究主軸。 論文伊始，先介紹公法上金錢給付義務強制執行之實務概況，嗣分別論述：（一）、人身自由與遷徙自由之保障，及對其為限制時之違憲審查。（二）、採取拘提、管收、暫予留置、限制出境等執行措施之相關問題。（三）、人身自由權與遷徙自由權作為基本權利所發揮之功能。最後，基於建構「立法者改善義務」之憲法上理論依據，提出修法建議。 / All developed countries in the world pay attention to and pursue to the protection of human rights. It becomes a general value worldwide and it is an index measuring the democracy of a country. The personal freedom and movement freedom are the fundamental human rights stated in the Constitution of our country and they should be protected strictly. However, they still should not violate the restriction stated in Clause 23 in Constitution. The realization of creditor's right of the country and the protection of the law and order of the country are the major items for public benefits. The obligation of payment in Public Law is closely related to the integrity of the national revenue and implementation of the development. It is closely linked to the welfare of all citizens. The coactive execution of the above-stated obligation is to ensure the realization of the right of creditor of the country so that the national development and other administrative payments can be completed smoothly. In the country governed by law, it is the obligation of the citizens to obey the law. If the citizens violate the law, the coactive execution will be conducted in order to achieve the equivalent juridical of the above-stated obligation, and maintain the fair and just principle of the country governed by law and establish the order of administrative law. Regarding the arrest, detention, temporary detention and departure restriction in administrative executive, it is the execution authority of the country to restrict the personal freedom and movement freedom in order to realize the two major benefits stated above. The main purpose of this thesis is to discuss how the important conditions of violation of Clause 23 of Constitution can be reviewed to obtain the legitimacy and justifiability of those executions under the protection of fundamental human rights. At the beginning of the thesis, the overview of coactive execution of obligation about payment in Public Law is introduced. It includes: (1) the protection of personal freedom and movement freedom, and the corresponding restriction in accordance with the review of violation of Constitution; (2) the relevant issues for the execution of arrest, detention, temporary detention and departure restriction; (3) the effect of personal freedom and movement freedom on the fundamental rights. Finally, according to the "obligation of legislator on improvement" on Constitution, the amendment will be proposed.

一、兩項基本問題 正當法律程序或正當程序作為一項規範概念，與民主、法治理念之生成與發展，息息相關。然而，起源於英美法的這項法規範，雖經由「普通法」、「判例法」體系或實定法，形成具有一定憲法規範內涵之程序權利或原則，但原本僅適用於「司法程序」（特別是刑事程序），其後才逐漸擴及「行政程序」。對於無此法律文化傳統之大陸法系國家而言，如我國，繼受此項程序規範於行政程序法律關係中，誠屬不易，雖然司法院大法官自釋字第三八四號解釋以來，多所引用與闡釋此項規範概念，但其如何融入於憲法基本權規範秩序上，以及其規範內涵與決定此內涵之標準何在，仍相當不明確。就此兩大適用上之基本問題，是為本文研究之重點。 二、規範基礎或性質 「正當法律程序」作為行政程序之規範概念，於我國憲法上之規範依據，何在？其在憲法上之規範性質，是否僅係一項憲法原則？抑或仍可能是人民之主觀程序基本權―正當程序權（公平聽審權／公正程序權）？就此，我國憲法雖未明文規定，但以往司法院大法官解釋，對於行政程序直接涉及人民基本權者，大體上係傾向於以憲法原則處理，或者更更具體地說，係為保障實體基本權而導出一定之程序要求，此尤其係有關人身自由權以外之解釋，為然，至於人身自由權部分，態度上則較為曖昧。學界多數之看法，似乎也是如此。這種類如德國法之理論模式，若再結合憲法第二十三條關於基本權限制之合憲要件（法律保留、比例原則及公益）規定之適用，很容易導致憲法基本公正程序規範要求之空洞化，甚至無形化，換言之，只是「必要」時，須以「法律」規定程序規範內涵而已。如此，背後之法哲學觀，基本上是程序為實體服務，行政程序之法本質，僅係工具性、利他性。 本文不贊同上開「程序為實體服務」之單一價值。故於第二章詳細論證行政程序，除利他性外，尚有公正性及民主正當性之法本質；而且，「正當法律程序」作為行政程序之一種規範，在我國憲法基本權之保障上，所彰顯之規範性質，應分別就第十六條保障之訴願權、第八條第一項人身自由權之程序保障以及其他實體基本權而論，前兩者應屬人民之主觀「程序基本權」（正當程序權／公平聽審權），後者則是一項憲法原則，因此，前兩者具有獨自之評價意義，後者尚須考慮其他規範（實體基本權）或事實因素。惟不管何者，均應具有一定之憲法上基本之公正程序規範要求，只不過後者顯現在個案適用上，其規範內涵變動性較大罷了。職是，本文在第三章，強調正當法律程序之規範內涵，並非完全屬於立法者之形成自由；同時，進一步論述正當法律程序作為一項憲法規範，其與法治、民主原則之關聯性。 三、規範之基本內涵及其判斷標準 然而，正當法律程序於行政程序法律關係中，其於憲法上之基本程序規範內涵，以及決定其內涵之法律標準何在？是另一項難解之問題。本文於第四章及第五章，分別就美國憲法及歐洲人權公約乃至歐盟法，予以研究，並以此為基礎，於第六章闡述我國憲法秩序下，行政程序中之正當法律程序應具何等規範內涵以及其判斷標準。首先，關於憲法第八條第一項規定之人身自由之程序擔保，人民就此具有一般之正當程序權，其內涵於行政程序上，至少為告知理由、合理期間內迅速進行、給予陳述意見等，惟此部份尚待司法解釋逐案確立。其次，為保障實體基本權而導出之公正程序規範要求，大法官係取向於重大限制或影響基本權之標準，本文則認為重大與否，僅係影響其應具何等之程序規範要求（密度），至於其內涵則較具彈性，惟須注意價值判斷標準之一致性。最後，就訴願權而言，因其屬行政救濟一環，解釋上應較一般之行政程序所需之公正程序擔保密度為高，其大體應包括（1）接近訴願裁決機關權、（2）受「公正之訴願裁決機關」裁決權，以及（3）公正訴願程序權（含程序不偏頗及公平聽審權）。

本文主要以探討自由權利在我國憲法上所處之角色、地位及其內容，而從自由觀念的演變，導引出法治國家的基本理論，並配合聯邦憲法的行憲經驗及我國實務運作的情形，來相互檢證以了解自由權真正的保障意義。故在章節安排上，第一章先界定自由權的涵意。第二章則比較東西方與中山先生自由觀的不同。第三章說明分析相關的理論基礎。第四章探究現行憲法的相關規定。第五章則從比較法上了解美國自由權的保障的規定。第六章以我國實務運行的成果為研究對象。第七章則將前述綜合分析，提出一研究發現與建議。總而言之，我國憲法保障自由權的規定相當完備，至於如何落實則仍須再加強，如此保障制度的設計才能有意義。

關鍵詞：非法移民、非法外來人口、收容、非刑事拘禁、人身自由、家庭權、平等權、法官保留、正當法律程序、異議、追究、提審 近年來，我國隨著人權國際化的發展，特別是在兩公約施行法公布之後，非法外來人口的收容問題成為熱門的人權議題之ㄧ，因此，引發作者研究的動機。 由於我國國情特殊，外來人口並不限於「外國人」或「無國籍人」，尚包含「無戶籍國民」、「大陸地區人民」、「香港居民」與「澳門居民」等類人士；次查，該等外來人口來臺，未必都有「移民」的意圖，為周延起見，因此，本文將「非法移民」一詞改稱為「非法外來人口」。 經查目前我國非法外來人口以「外國人」與「大陸地區人民」居多，故本文的研究對象乃聚焦於該兩種人士。另外，本文將收容對象限縮於「已入境」且「違反移民法規」的非法外來人口，並將「收容」定義為「主管機關為達成遣返任務，於遣返前，將非法外來人口暫時留置於收容處所的行政行為」，因此，非法外來人口收容之法律性質，為行政處分，屬遣返非法外來人口前之暫時性行政保全措施，不具裁罰性，故非屬行政罰，當然，更非屬刑事處分，自應與刑事訴訟法之「羈押」有所區別。 本論文計分「緒論」、「收容制度之外國借鏡」、「我國收容制度」、「受收容人基本權之保障與衝突」、「收容實務現況及其困境」、「我國收容在合憲性之探討」、「收容與行政救濟」及「結論與建議」等八章。 首先，由美、日及其他世界主要國家對於非法移民的收容制度觀察，發現大多數國家對於非法移民之收容並未採行「法官保留」制度，各國對於收容期限的規定也不一致，而隨著非法移民的日漸增多，近年各國對於非法移民的防杜、查緝與管理，亦較以前積極且嚴格。 我國收容制度主要分為對外國人（含一般外國人與外籍勞工）與對大陸地區人民兩大類，分別由入出國及移民法第38條、就業服務法第68條第4項及臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例（以下簡稱兩岸條例）第18條規範。就外國人與大陸地區人民收容制度之比較發現，二者其實大同小異。有關收容處分機關、法律性質、期間、處分方式、收容處所、對於已取得居留許可且具備一定要件之受處分人遣返前得召開審查會審查、給予當事人陳述意見之機會以及在收容處所內之處遇均相同；主要差異在於「收容要件」、「異議程序之有無」、「折抵刑期或罰金額數之程序」、「驅逐出國（強制出境）前，應否先經司法機關之同意」等程序，此外，大陸地區人民之強制出境，因二十年來，兩岸依循金門協議機制定期運作，尚未發生無法遣返問題，故兩岸條例並無類似外國人得因無法遣返而廢止收容處分之規範。 基本權利的保障，應遵守「層級化法律保留原則」與「重要性理論」，而法益衝突問題，則應依人權調整原理處理。受收容人之基本權利保障與法益衝突，亦應遵守前述法理加以處理，本文爰以受收容人之人身自由、家庭權與平等權三面向加以探討。 繼之，由收容相關處理流程、近4年外國籍與大陸籍受收容人之人數與平均收容天數、外國籍涉案與未涉案人數與比例、收容天數的比較等統計數據，呈現收容實務的現況，並簡要敘述收容行政所面臨的困境及主管機關移民署所做的具體改善措施（包含研擬入出國及移民法修正草案等）。 有關收容的合憲性，分為「法官保留與受收容人之人身自由」、「令從事勞務與工作權保障」、「收容期間與明確性原則」、「刑期折抵與羈押之錯置」、「概括條款之濫用」與「刑事收容之新構思」六方面論述，研究結果發現，現行收容相關規定之合憲性與適法性，尚無疑義。惟查，具體個案執行上，對於涉及刑案之受收容人的「延長收容」，發現有單純僅為順應司法機關犯罪偵審需要而為，並未嚴格審視收容是否具備「保全遣返必要性」之前提要件，與立法目的尚屬有間，恐有違反比例原則之虞。次查，現行規定中，「令從事勞務」一詞，容易引人誤解有侵害工作權之虞，且不符實務現況；而「收容天數得刑期折抵」的權宜措施，不但不能消除「以收容代替羈押」有侵害人權的疑慮，反而，更混淆了收容的法律性質，也讓司法機關有藉口將涉及刑案之非法外來人口「責付」行政機關「收容」，使問題更形嚴重；至於入出國及移民法第38條第1項第4款之概括規定，也容易使收容變相成為刑事追訴之保全機制。凡此種種，均待澈底檢討。 關於非法外來人口收容的行政救濟方面，本文則分別就「異議」、「訴願」、「行政訴訟」、「國家賠償」、「提審」與「追究」等面向觀察，研究發現受收容人提起行政救濟的案例不多，而就實務案例觀察，現行救濟程序對於受收容人之權益保障，確實有緩不濟急的現象發生，亟待改善。 本文對於現行非法外來人口收容法制，歸結如下： 一、非法外來人口收容，未採「法官保留」原則，並未違反憲法第八條之規定，其合憲性尚無疑慮。 二、現行非法外來人口收容法制，符合「公民與政治權利國際公約」相關規定，亦無適法性問題。 三、程序權保障部分 現行非法外來人口收容法制中，有關外國人與大陸地區人民之程序權保障規定未盡一致，且欠缺公正第三人介入審查之強制機制，應加以改善。 四、欠缺事後即時司法審查機制 非法外來人口收容，性質上屬「非刑事拘禁」，受收容人除得依憲法第8條第4項規定向法院聲請「追究」外，亦得依公民與政治權利國際公約第13條規定聲請法院「提審」，惟查，現行提審法、行政訴訟法、法院組織法等法規尚欠缺相關配套機制，有賴司法機關正視並積極建置。 五、刑事程序與行政程序應有所區隔 現行規定，將偵審中或待服刑之犯罪嫌疑人或刑事被告，納入得收容之對象，而遣返刑案被告前，又必須得到司法機關之同意，而收容延長之次數亦未明文限制，收容日數並得折抵刑期，不但再再混淆收容之法律性質，也是遭來「以收容代替羈押」批評的導火線。為切合收容之立法目的，提升人權保障，本文認為對於涉刑案之非法外來人口，應依「先刑事後行政」原則辦理，收容對象應限縮為單純待遣返之非法外來人口。 六、得命服勞役之規定，未切合實務現況，且容易引發侵害人權之誤解，應配合兩公約施行法之公布施行，儘速刪除之。 七、非法外勞收容之法源依據亟待修正 經查就業服務法迄未配合移民署之成立而加以修正，為符法制，減少疑義，勞政與立法機關應積極推動修法事宜。 至於本文對於非法外來人口收容法制之主要建議如下： 一、對於移民法、兩岸條例之修正建議 （一）收容對象應修正為以「單純等待遣返之非法外來人口」為限，刪除司法機關得將涉及刑案且尚待偵審之非法外來人口「責付」移民署收容之規定。 （二）刪除「遣返前應經司法機關同意」之規定。 （三）刪除「收容日數得折抵刑期或罰金」之規定。 （四）俟司法院建置「追究」或「提審」等事後即時司法審查機制後，刪除「收容異議制度」。 （五）於入出國及移民法修正草案中，增列大陸地區人民與港澳居民得「準用」外國人收容相關規定。 二、建議司法院研修提審法、法院組織法與行政訴訟法，建立非法外來人口收容「追究」、「提審」等事後即時司法審查機制；此外，為提升對於涉及刑案受收容人之權益保障，則建議司法院研修刑事訴訟法，針對觸犯微罪且有逃亡或逃亡之虞之犯罪嫌疑人或被告，增列「刑事收容」制度，以符刑事偵審實需。 三、建議勞委會儘速修正就業服務法相關法規，增列移民署查緝、收容非法外勞之法源依據，並建置完善之外籍勞工相關制度，減少非法外勞之發生率。 四、修正國家安全法第3條不合時宜之規定。 五、行政院應建置跨部會整合平台，釐定完整妥適之移民政策後，相關部會應配合修訂移民配套法規。 / Keywords: illegal immigration, illegal alien population, detention, liberty, family rights, equal rights, due process of law, dissent, legal investigation, Habeas Corpus In the recent years, Taiwan, following the international development in human rights and especially after the release of Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (hereby referred to as the “Two Covenants”) has started the popular discussion of illegal alien population detention. This paved the way to the subject of my thesis. Because of Taiwan's special political situation, the immigrant population is defined as not only "foreigners" or "stateless people", but also as "non-permanent nationals", "Mainland citizens", "Hong Kong residents", "Macao residents" and other categories of people. The foreign population that comes to Taiwan may not all have "migration intent”, so for the sake of being thorough, in this thesis, the term "illegal immigrants" will be changed to the broader term of "illegal aliens." As the current investigation shows illegal alien population is mostly from Mainland China and foreign countries, this study will focus on these two groups. Aliens that can be “detained” are limited in this study to illegal aliens that have entered Taiwan and have violated immigration laws. The term “detention" is defined as "an administrative act of keeping illegal aliens in temporary premises during pre-removal process until their repatriation”. The detention of illegal alien population is an executive sanction given prior to the repatriation of illegal aliens. It is a temporary executive protection measure, not a punitive one. It is not an administrative penalty and a non-criminal sanction. It differs from the term “custody” of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The thesis is divided into the following eight sections: 1. Introduction 2. Foreign-Based Detention System 3. Taiwan’s Detention System 4. Basic Human Rights of the Detained Aliens and Their Conflicts 5. Plight of Current Detention Practices 6. Constitutionality of Taiwan’s Detention System 7. Remedies for Detaining and Executive Practices 8. Conclusions and Recommendations In the first place, most of the detention systems in the United States, Japan and other developed countries in the world do not adopt the " Grundsatz des Richtervorbehaltes " system. The periods for detention around the world are also different. As the number of illegal immigration cases increases in these countries, the prevention, investigation and management of illegal immigration have also become more proactive and stricter than ever before. Taiwan's detention system can be subdivided into two major groups, foreigners (including foreign workers) and Chinese Mainlanders, overseen by the Immigration Act Section 38 of the Employment Service Law Article 68, Paragraph 4, and the Taiwanese and the Mainland Regional Relations (hereinafter referred to as Cross Strait Ordinance) Article 18. The detention system for foreigners and Mainlanders are essentially the same in Taiwan. They both share the same agencies for detention, regulations, detention duration, decisions, detention locations, resident alien pre-repatriation reviews, opportunities for legal defense, and detention treatment. The main differences between the two groups are: the requirements for detention, the presence or absence of objection procedures, the procedure for sentence set-off or penalty fines, the requirement of judicial consent prior to expulsion (forced exit) from the country, and other similar processes. In the last two decades, through the Golden Gate Agreement between Taiwan and Mainland China, there are regularly scheduled forced exits of Mainlanders from Taiwan. Repatriation of Mainlanders has not had any issues yet. That is why there has not been the need for regulations stopping their detention due to inability to repatriate them like in the cases of foreigners. The protection of fundamental rights should comply with "the hierarchy of legal reservation" and "the importance theory". The conflicts among legal interests should be adjusted in accordance with human rights principles. And the fundamental rights of the detained people should be addressed by the past legal principles. This thesis will cover three directions: people's personal freedom, family rights and equal rights. Through detention-related processes, the statistical comparisons between the number of detained aliens and average days in the detention centers of foreign nationals and Mainlanders, and the statistical comparison between foreign nationals involved and not involved in detention and the number of days in detention, one can see the current condition of detention and can describe the difficulties faced by the Administration and the implementation of specific improvement plans (including entry and exit information, drafts to amend the Immigration Act sent to the Legislature, etc.) by the various related authorities within the Department of Immigration. The constitutionality of the detention is divided into six discussion topics: "Grundsatz des Richtervorbehaltes and Detainee’s Personal Freedom", "Right to Work and Protection of that Right", "Clear Detention Period," "Difference Between Sentence Set-Off and Detention," "Abuse of General Terms" and "Constructive Thoughts of Criminal Custody". From my research, the constitutionality and applicability of existing regulations are clear. However, during actual prosecution of individual cases, detained aliens involved in criminal cases may "extend detention" and are tried simply as criminal cases, not evaluating beforehand the necessity of repatriation, whether there is a gap with the legislative goal and whether it violates the principle of proportionality. In current regulations, the phrase “serve labor sentence” easily leads to misunderstanding that there exists labor rights violation. And the implementation of right to off-set imprisonment by detention days not only does not eliminate the question of whether administrative detention replaces imprisonment has human rights violation, but it confuses the nature of detention laws. It also lets judicial agencies use criminal cases involving illegal aliens to be part of Administrative agencies’ responsibility, worsening the problem. The Border Entry and Exit and Immigration Act Article 38, Section 1, paragraph 4, also easily transforms detention into a mechanism of shielding against criminal prosecution. All this should be reviewed and analyzed in its entirety. Concerning the detained illegal aliens’ executive relief, this thesis will analyze from the points of "dissent", "petition", "executive action", "National Compensation", "Habeas Corpus" and "accountability". Studies found there are not too many cases of executive relief filed by the detained aliens. From observing the practical cases, the current relief program for the protection of the detained aliens’ rights is quite slow and needs improvement. The detention laws regarding the current illegal alien population can be summarized as followed: 1. Although the detention of illegal alien population does not to adopt "Grundsatz des Richtervorbehaltes " principle, it does not violate the provisions of Article 8 of the Constitution and there is no doubt of its constitutionality. 2. The current detention laws of illegal alien population fit the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," and related provisions, there is no issue of applicability. 3. The part related to the protection of process right In the current laws related to detention of illegal aliens, the sections related to foreigners and Mainlanders that guarantee the process right are not entirely consistent, and they lack the enforcement mechanism of requiring reviews by impartial third parties. This should be improved. 4. Lack of mechanism that requires immediate judicial review The detention of illegal alien population is a "non-criminal detention". Article 8 of the Constitution, Paragraph 4 provides that illegal aliens may ask the Court for investigation; or the alien may ask for a judicial habeas corpus according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 13. The current Habeas Corpus, Administrative Procedure Laws, Court Organization Laws and other related regulations still need supporting structure and that responsibility falls on the judiciary branch to address directly and actively. 5. The separation of criminal and administrative procedures Existing regulations consider aliens in the mist of investigation, alien suspects awaiting sentencing, and criminal alien defendants are possible subjects for detention. There must be judicial consent prior to repatriation of criminal case defendants. However the fact that limitation on the number of times that detention may be extended has not been clearly set and that the days in the detention may set off the imprisonment not only creates massive legal confusion, but also invites criticism that "detention is now replacing imprisonment". To meet the legislative goal of establishing detention laws to enhance human rights, this thesis argues for the illegal aliens involved in criminal cases should first be tried as criminals, then as administrative defendants. And detention laws should be limited to repatriation of illegal alien population only. 6. Regulations requiring serving labor sentence do not fit current reality or practices. This easily leads to misunderstanding of human rights violation. It should be deleted immediately. The regulations should be compatible with the release of the Two Covenants. 7. The laws related to illegal alien workers detention should be corrected The Employment Service Act is not consistent with the establishment of the Department of Immigration. The Act should be amended to meet the current legal system and reduce ambiguity. Labor Administration and Legislative agencies should proactively promote the amendment of this Act. The main recommendations for the legal system around detention of illegal aliens are: A. Suggested amendments for immigration laws and cross-strait ordinance (a) Candidates for detention should be amended to accommodate illegal aliens that are simply awaiting repatriation. The need for judicial involvement should be deleted. And illegal aliens involved in criminal investigation and hearing should be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Immigration. (b) The regulation requiring judicial consent prior to repatriation should be deleted. (c) The allowance for reducing length of sentence or fines by detention days should be removed. (d) After the Judicial Branch establishes investigation and habeas corpus and the judicial review, there should not be a separate detention system. (e) During border entries and exits and during immigration law amendments, more provisions for detaining illegal foreign aliens should apply to Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao residents. B. The Judicial Branch should analyze and edit current habeas corpus laws, court organization laws and administrative procedure laws in order to establish immediate judicial review process after illegal aliens enters custody. In addition, to improve the protection of the rights of the detaining aliens who are involved in criminal cases, the Judicial Ministry should review and edit criminal proceedings laws and add “criminal custody” system to meet current needs. C. The Council of Labor Affairs should amend as soon as possible the Employment Services Act and related regulations, to increase additional investigation by the Department of Immigration, detention laws related to illegal alien workers, and build a complete legal system for foreign workers in order to reduce cases of illegal foreign workers. D. Section 3 of the National Security Act is obsolete and should be amended to reflect current reality. E. The Executive Branch should build cross-agency integration platform, determining the suitable immigration policies, and relevant departments need to support the amended immigration regulations.

本文以1998年人權法之施行為分界，對英國人身自由保護法制的轉變作一分析比較，以凸顯歐洲人權法院相關裁判對英國國內法規的影響。儘管國家機關拘束人民人身自由之事由，並不限於刑事偵查目的之達成，也包括精神疾患等非刑事犯嫌的人身拘束，但傳統上這些非刑事犯嫌的被拘束人受到的關注較少，法律對其人身自由的保障亦較不足。因此，本文處理的重點主要落在非刑事犯嫌的人身自由保護法制，尤其是精神疾患的強制住院以及無期徒刑受刑人的假釋准駁，除了論述分析英國相關法規的變化，亦對照我國相關法律規定的現狀，提出改革的建議。