Received a ** consultation involving criminal coercive measures:
The consulter's question was that his son was arrested on suspicion of fraud, because the case was handled by the public security in a different place, and he was placed under residential surveillance at a designated location at the location of the case-handling organ. As a result, it was very inconvenient for him to meet with his lawyer, and when the lawyer met, the police officer in charge of residential surveillance only agreed to meet for a few minutes. As a result, the defender is unable to communicate with the suspect in depth. In addition, after the lawyer came out of the meeting, he did not give him any feedback on the situation, and he felt very confused.
Residential surveillance at a designated location is an enforcement measure of residential surveillance established in accordance with article 66 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which stipulates that "the people's courts, people's procuratorates, and public security organs may, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, place a criminal suspect or defendant under custodial summons, release on guarantee pending further investigation, or residential surveillance". According to articles 117 and 118 of the "Provisions on the Procedures for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs", whether the public security organ decides, or the people's procuratorate or people's court decides to place a designated person under residential surveillance, it shall be "enforced by the police station where the person under residential surveillance is located or where the designated residence is located."
With regard to meetings with persons under residential surveillance, article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that during the period of residential surveillance at a designated location, criminal suspects or defendants under residential surveillance "shall not meet with others or communicate with others without the approval of the enforcement organs". In addition, there are no special provisions on lawyer meetings, that is, for example, paragraph 3 of article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Law, "the provisions of article 34 of this law shall apply to the retention of a defender by a criminal suspect or defendant under residential surveillance." ”
In addition to the provisions of the above-mentioned relevant normative documents, there is no other law that provides that the meeting of a lawyer under RSDL is any different from a meeting where other compulsory measures have been taken, and there is no express provision that a lawyer under RSDL can only meet for a few minutes. Moreover, the length of several minutes is completely unable to meet the objective needs of lawyers to meet with them to understand the facts of the case, verify evidence, and provide advisory opinions and defense opinions. Therefore, lawyer Wang believes that the argument that the RSDL interview can only last a few minutes is untenable. If it is true, it is suspected of infringing on the criminal suspect or defendant's right to obtain a defense and the lawyer's right to a defense. Lawyers have the right to file complaints in this regard.
As for the fact that the lawyer mentioned by the consultant did not give him any feedback after the meeting, this needs to be understood separately. On the one hand, it is true that the specific circumstances of the case learned during the lawyer's meeting cannot be disclosed to the family, which is a requirement of the law and the lawyer's professional norms, and violating the requirements will put the lawyer in a situation of violating the lawOn the other hand, it does not mean that the lawyer cannot give feedback to the family after the meeting, and some things that are not related to the facts of the case, such as the mental condition, physical condition, and living needs of the criminal suspect or defendant, can still be given feedback to the family. Although a lawyer's meeting is a way to perform defense functions, in reality, people whose personal liberty is restricted are generally not allowed to meet with anyone other than the defender, so it is reasonable for the defender to assist in conveying information unrelated to the case without violating the provisions of the law.
Of course, when conveying relevant information, lawyers should pay attention to distinguishing whether there are metaphors, code words, etc., so as to avoid being used to affect the handling of the case. In that case, the lawyer will be held responsible.