China’s lower courts routinely seek pre-verdict instructions from higher courts. It’s a system now getting close scrutiny.
Ye Doudou and guest columnist Chen Ruihua 16 June 2009
(Caijing.com.cn) The Supreme People’s Court of China recently started researching the judiciary’s “instruction on request” system following requests for and attempts to abolish this long-standing court procedure, which conflicts with fundamental principles and rule of law.
Instruction is common during a court hearing in China. Trial judges or court officials seek instructions from a superior court before announcing a judgment. It often deprives trial judges of independence and autonomy in making decisions. What’s worse, a first instance verdict takes into consideration an opinion from a superior court, which hands down a second instance judgment, thus rendering appeals against a first instance verdict meaningless.
During the 2009 annual session of the National People’s Congress, Wang Huifang, an NPC delegate from Zhejiang Province, and several other delegates introduced a bill aimed at abolishing the system of instruction on request. Wang had noticed in a routine case that both first and second instance courts had asked the Zhejiang High People’s Court for instructions on what verdict should be expected. It’s worth mentioning that the two courts referred to different replies made by the provincial high court. Though the high court later claimed that it didn’t intervene in the case, Wang’s bill has brought a lot of attention to the Supreme Court.
The instruction system has a negative effect on justice. First, it means proceedings are judicial in name only. A superior court acts as a “supervisor” during a trial. As mentioned, this often prevents trial judges from making independent decisions. The verdict does not consider debates between plaintiffs and defendants. This is an unscrupulous trampling of principles of legal equity and justice.
Second, if judgments by first instance courts are influenced by superior courts, there is no room for a system that lets either side appeal to higher courts for overturning of unsatisfactory verdicts. The system of instruction on request deprives people of opportunities to get help from superior courts through appeals.
Third, trial “backdoor politics” circumvents open and transparent court debates and the evidence presented by either side. A superior court reaches a conclusion simply based on data, files and reports from a first instance court. A verdict borne in such a closed environment can hardly stand the test of time.
The system of instruction on request prevents concerned parties from expressing their views and influencing verdicts. This disappoints those who wish to resort to the legal system when benefits have been denied and rights infringed upon. Alternatively, they are inclined to appeal to executive authorities for help.
Some local court judges have argued that, in certain cases, a first instance court has to use an instruction from a superior court as a shield against pressure imposed by a Communist Party committee and the government. Besides, major case verdicts by first instance courts have to be approved by superior courts. This explains why the former seeks instructions from the latter.
Possible reforms by the Supreme Court may follow three steps. First, the system of instruction on request would be abolished. Superior courts would then be restrained from intervening in case trials. Finally, judicial supervision would be clearly distinguished from judicial administration to prevent the latter from influencing verdicts.
Moreover, efforts should be made to improve the legal system’s external environment. If local Communist Party committees and the government maintain tight control of resources needed for court operations, how can they shield themselves from pressure without asking superior courts for help? Reforming the system of instruction on request is best understood in a broad context.
Chen Ruihua is a professor at Peking University Law School.
2 comments:
Judiciary’s ‘Instruction’ System On Trial
China’s lower courts routinely seek pre-verdict instructions from higher courts. It’s a system now getting close scrutiny.
Ye Doudou and guest columnist Chen Ruihua
16 June 2009
(Caijing.com.cn) The Supreme People’s Court of China recently started researching the judiciary’s “instruction on request” system following requests for and attempts to abolish this long-standing court procedure, which conflicts with fundamental principles and rule of law.
Instruction is common during a court hearing in China. Trial judges or court officials seek instructions from a superior court before announcing a judgment. It often deprives trial judges of independence and autonomy in making decisions. What’s worse, a first instance verdict takes into consideration an opinion from a superior court, which hands down a second instance judgment, thus rendering appeals against a first instance verdict meaningless.
During the 2009 annual session of the National People’s Congress, Wang Huifang, an NPC delegate from Zhejiang Province, and several other delegates introduced a bill aimed at abolishing the system of instruction on request. Wang had noticed in a routine case that both first and second instance courts had asked the Zhejiang High People’s Court for instructions on what verdict should be expected. It’s worth mentioning that the two courts referred to different replies made by the provincial high court. Though the high court later claimed that it didn’t intervene in the case, Wang’s bill has brought a lot of attention to the Supreme Court.
The instruction system has a negative effect on justice. First, it means proceedings are judicial in name only. A superior court acts as a “supervisor” during a trial. As mentioned, this often prevents trial judges from making independent decisions. The verdict does not consider debates between plaintiffs and defendants. This is an unscrupulous trampling of principles of legal equity and justice.
Second, if judgments by first instance courts are influenced by superior courts, there is no room for a system that lets either side appeal to higher courts for overturning of unsatisfactory verdicts. The system of instruction on request deprives people of opportunities to get help from superior courts through appeals.
Third, trial “backdoor politics” circumvents open and transparent court debates and the evidence presented by either side. A superior court reaches a conclusion simply based on data, files and reports from a first instance court. A verdict borne in such a closed environment can hardly stand the test of time.
The system of instruction on request prevents concerned parties from expressing their views and influencing verdicts. This disappoints those who wish to resort to the legal system when benefits have been denied and rights infringed upon. Alternatively, they are inclined to appeal to executive authorities for help.
Some local court judges have argued that, in certain cases, a first instance court has to use an instruction from a superior court as a shield against pressure imposed by a Communist Party committee and the government. Besides, major case verdicts by first instance courts have to be approved by superior courts. This explains why the former seeks instructions from the latter.
Possible reforms by the Supreme Court may follow three steps. First, the system of instruction on request would be abolished. Superior courts would then be restrained from intervening in case trials. Finally, judicial supervision would be clearly distinguished from judicial administration to prevent the latter from influencing verdicts.
Moreover, efforts should be made to improve the legal system’s external environment. If local Communist Party committees and the government maintain tight control of resources needed for court operations, how can they shield themselves from pressure without asking superior courts for help? Reforming the system of instruction on request is best understood in a broad context.
Chen Ruihua is a professor at Peking University Law School.
Post a Comment