2013年前台北市議員賴素如因涉嫌貪污，於偵查階段遭檢方聲請羈押並經法院裁准之。遂向臺灣高等法院提起抗告，經裁定駁回抗告確定後，賴素如與其辯護律師遂共同聲請釋憲，主張刑事訴訟法第33條第1項規定，全面限制辯護人於偵查程序之閱卷權，違反憲法第8條、第16條保障人民權利之意旨；其辯護律師同時更主張其身為辯護人之工作權及固有閱卷權受到嚴重侵害。此涉及偵查程序中被告及其辯護人是否得以閱卷，一直以來都是刑事訴訟法上熱門的問題，被告或其辯護人若能閱卷，對於其訴訟防禦策略之擬定具有相當大的助益，然而被告或其辯護人若能於偵查中行使閱卷之權利，是否將對偵查不公開原則造成衝擊，則屬需詳細探討的問題。
本文首先定探尋閱卷權於法律上之地位以及法律之基礎，並透過整理德國、美國及日本法上閱卷權之發展與規範，對應閱卷權於我國刑事訴訟法之發展與規範，並研究閱卷權應於我國刑事訴訟法之定位及行使依據。再者，2016年司法院釋字第737號明確表示，偵查中之羈押程序，被告及其辯護人擁有閱覽卷證或獲知卷證資訊之權利，本文藉由司法院釋字第737號解釋之意旨，探求大法官對於閱卷權之保障範圍之界線為何，並以此觀點對於2017年刑事訴訟法之修法進行修法評析，探討閱卷權於現行刑事訴訟法施行之狀況及可能碰到之問題，最後針對修法後所產生之問題或不足之處，提出本文之建議。
The defendant and the defense attorney in investigation procedure may examine the case file or not is an important issue in the criminal procedure. If defendant and defense attorney in investigation procedure may examine the case file, it will help defendant and defense attorney study out the complete strategy of the criminal procedure. But if defendant and defense attorney in investigation procedure can examine the case file,it might damage non-disclosure of investigations principle. So how to balance the protection of defendant’s right of access to the file and the non-disclosure of investigations principle is the important question in criminal proceeding.Therefore, habeas corpus proceedings must provide sufficient guarantees of the judicial procedure, including varied procedural rights.
Since the regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused in pretrial detention does not have the right to having a defence counsel appointed by a judge or prosecutor. Moreover, a defence counsel does not have the right to access the case-files in pretrial proceedings, even if the accused is in remand detention.In order to find the solution and way of solving, this article begins with the general introduction of criminal defense right which discusses the limitation of all sorts of types of defense right in practical investigation, and puts forward views and suggestions respectively for the the right of access to case files.
