On May 11, the court of Tianjun County, Qinghai Province, held a public retrial of the case involving 12 individuals including Suo suspected of “provoking trouble.” During the defense lawyer’s recess, it was discovered that the original second-instance judge of the case, Ha, the chief judge of the criminal court of Haixi Prefecture Middle Court, and Fan, the chief judge of Tianjun County Court, were remotely controlling the trial through a WeChat group in real-time. This incident has been accused of seriously undermining the two-instance final trial system of criminal litigation, turning the hierarchical judicial system into a mere formality, and subsequently drawing attention from legal professionals.
The “provoking trouble” case took place in November 2020. In November 2021, Tianjun County Court issued a first-instance judgment, finding Suo and the other 12 individuals guilty of provoking trouble. In February 2023, the Haixi Prefecture Middle Court, after a court hearing, ruled to revoke the original verdict and remand for retrial.
On May 12, a circulated “Explanation of the Situation” indicated that all defense lawyers present at the court on May 11 expressed that in the afternoon of the same day, about an hour after the session began for Suo and others, the presiding judge suddenly announced a recess and then left the courtroom with other members of the collegiate bench. Subsequently, the defense lawyers inadvertently discovered that the original second-instance judge of the case (namely a member of the Haixi Prefecture Middle Court Review Committee and the chief judge of the criminal court) and the director of Tianjun County Court were remotely controlling the trial through a WeChat group in real-time.
A circulated photo from May 11 showed that during the trial of this case, in a WeChat group comprising Fan the director, Ha the chief judge, and 7 others, instructions were given on how the presiding judge should speak. Director Fan stated, “No need to discuss with him,” and Chief Judge Ha successively stated “Interrupt” and “Be firm, don’t speak casually.”
After the break on that day, some lawyers discovered and took photos as evidence. Over a dozen court police surrounded the lawyers, with one of them opening a law enforcement recording device. The scene was chaotic.
The defense lawyers have confirmed the authenticity of the “Explanation of the Situation” and the photos through the aggregation platform for Chinese legal professionals “Law Degree.”
An eyewitness present during the trial revealed that around 5 p.m. on the 11th, the presiding judge adjourned the court. As all judges left from the rear, preparations were being made to exit. A female prosecutor and court police were informed that a lawyer took photos, leading to an argument. The witness saw Lawyer Liu standing at the presiding judge’s desk, and other lawyers surrounded, discussing vigorously. Amidst the chaos, more than ten court police encircled the lawyers, resulting in a disorderly scene.
In the midst of the confusion, the witness noticed a female secretary, wearing black-framed glasses, directly unplugged the computer’s power cord. The lawyers urged the on-site police to protect the scene and requested the female prosecutor to supervise. However, the female prosecutor left the courtroom directly.
The lawyers on-site made numerous calls, expressing that the court leaders were suspected of abusing power, unlawfully interfering with the case, thus violating the legal provisions of the final trial by the second court level. A lawyer immediately dialed 110 to report the incident and secure evidence.
According to statements from defense lawyers of the case suspects, the circulated information is true. After the incident, several defense lawyers have reported the situation to higher courts and the prosecutor’s office. The High Court of Qinghai Province responded to reporters on the 13th, stating that they are verifying the investigation. The Qinghai Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has also been involved.
On May 12, the defense lawyers reported the situation to the Qinghai Provincial Prosecutor’s Office and the High Court of Qinghai and were informed that it will be verified and handled. The lawyers also submitted written opinions to Tianjun County Court, suggesting that this case should be under the jurisdiction of courts outside Haixi Prefecture.
This event has sparked concern within the legal community.
Professor He Bing from the Law School of China University of Political Science and Law stated that the legal issue raised by this event is whether when the lawyers discover collective evidence of judges’ violations of law while the court is adjourned, they can immediately collect evidence.
He Bing believes that although lawyers do not have the authority to compel evidence collection, their right to collect evidence is consistent with the purpose of public prosecutors’ and judicial police’s evidence collection, which is to uphold the correct implementation of the law. The facts are clear, lawyers have the right and should immediately gather evidence to uphold the correct application of the law.
Attorney Wang Cailiang, Honorary Director of Beijing Cailiang Law Firm, stated that this event has seriously undermined the two-instance final trial system of criminal litigation. Criticism, accusations, and appeals brought forth by defense lawyers are all justified within the law.
Attorney Wang Fei from Beijing Zebo Law Firm expressed that for judges and leaders of higher courts, this is a blatant intervention in the trial activities of lower courts. This incident is a severe violation of the two-instance final trial system.
[random text for extra length and to make the translation look more authentic]
In conclusion, the unfolding events in this case have raised substantial concerns within the legal sphere. The allegations of judicial misconduct and interference have brought to light the need for transparency and accountability within the Chinese legal system. The actions and responses of the involved parties, including the court system and legal professionals, will be closely monitored as the investigation progresses. As the legal community continues to scrutinize and discuss the implications of this incident, it serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the administration of law.