In terms of political positioning, leading cadres are the "key minority" in governing the country according to law. They even determine the course of some cases.
In terms of case-handling organization, the court's collegial panel and adjudication committee are the main body of case adjudication, and the adjudication committee is often composed of the court's president, vice-presidents, full-time members, and division presidents of each operational division. In some cases, after the collegial panel determines its opinion, it will only be finalized after discussion by the adjudication committee. In practice, there is a practice of the adjudication committee changing the opinion of the collegial panel, and the collegial panel must implement the decision of the adjudication committee.
The procuratorial committee of the procuratorate is composed of the chief procurator, deputy chief procurator, full-time members, directors of various departments, and other leaders. Some cases also have to go through the Prosecution Committee before they can be decided.
In terms of internal supervision, the courts have a system of trial supervision and management and a system of "reading and verifying" judgment documents, and this system requires the court presidents and division heads to play a role. The Prosecutor works under the authority of the Prosecutor General.
In terms of external supervision, higher courts have the right to supervise lower courts, higher level procuratorates directly lead lower level procuratorates, and party committees, political and legal committees, and people's congresses also have the right to supervise courts and procuratorates.
These forms of supervision are legitimate.
When case-handling personnel have illegal circumstances, the parties and their lawyers have the right to report the situation to the leadership of the case-handling organ or the department at the level above, and request that it be handled. However, some leading cadres with supervisory responsibilities will refuse supervision by saying, "We cannot interfere in the handling of cases."
On the one hand, the parties and their lawyers hope that the case can be handled independently and impartially by the case-handling personnel, and do not want the case to be interfered with and interfered with by the leadership. On the other hand, the parties and their lawyers took the initiative to apply for the intervention of leading cadres in supervision. This seems contradictory. However, as long as you understand China's litigation system, there will be no such doubts, and there is no conflict between the two aspects.
In 2015, the General Office of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the General Office of the Communist Party of China issued the "Provisions on the Recording, Notification and Accountability of Leading Cadres Interfering in Judicial Activities and Interfering in the Handling of Specific Cases", which clarified the boundaries between interference and interference in cases and supervision.
Article 12 stipulates: "The term "leading cadres" as used in these regulations refers to leading cadres who have the status of state functionaries in party organs, people's congress organs, administrative organs, CPPCC organs, adjudication organs, procuratorial organs, military organs, companies, enterprises, public institutions, and social organizations at all levels. ”
It can be seen that the scope of leading cadres is extremely extensive.
Second, Article 8 of the document stipulates: "Where leading cadres commit any of the following acts, it is an illegal interference with judicial activities, and the political and legal committee of the Party committee shall report and approve it in accordance with the procedures, and may disclose it to the public when necessary: (1) requesting intercession for the parties to the case in the process of verification, case filing, investigation, review for prosecution, trial, enforcement, etc.; (2) Requesting that case-handling personnel or the responsible person for a case-handling unit meet privately with the parties to the case or their defenders, litigants, close relatives, and other persons with an interest in the case; (3) Instigating or conniving with staff or relatives to intercede on behalf of a party to the case; (4) For the sake of local or departmental interests, exceeding their authority to submit tendentious opinions or specific requirements on the handling of a case, through means such as hearing reports, holding coordination meetings, or issuing documents; (5) Other conduct that illegally interferes with judicial activities or obstructs judicial fairness. ”
These are the specific situations of meddling and interfering in the administration of justice. For example, some parties and their families are keen to "find connections" and want to secretly "ask for intercession" through some people to say hello to the case-handling personnel, so that the case can develop in the direction they want.
Third, Article 3 of the document stipulates: "Organs with leadership responsibilities for judicial work may, as necessary for the performance of their duties, follow work procedures to understand the circumstances of the case, organize the study of judicial policies, coordinate the handling of work in accordance with law, urge the judicial organs to perform their duties in accordance with the law, and create a fair judicial environment for the judicial organs, but must not make specific decisions on the admissibility of evidence, the determination of facts, judicial rulings, and so forth in cases." ”
This principled provision affirms the supervisory responsibilities of leading cadres and is consistent with the specific provisions of the Procedural Law, and is aimed at allowing judicial organs to handle cases independently and impartially, and cannot replace judicial organs in directly making decisions on the admissibility of evidence, the determination of facts, and judicial adjudication. For example, when it is obvious that there is a procedural violation of the law by the case-handling personnel (such as not recusing when they should have recused), the leading cadres should promptly correct it to ensure procedural justice.
When leading cadres interfere with or interfere in the administration of justice, they often directly make decisions on the admissibility of evidence, the determination of facts, and especially judicial adjudication. For example, the evidence for finding a defendant guilty is obviously not conclusive and insufficient, but when a leading cadre says that a conviction must be made, the court still has to create a "criminal fact" to be used to convict the defendant.
About author:Li Zhipeng is a criminal defense lawyer in Guangdong.