In late June, multiple cases of petitioners in Shanghai were scheduled for consecutive court hearings. Although the hearings were said to be public, many petitioners were blocked by court security when they attempted to attend. The case of Qin Yirong was one of those being heard, with over ten police officers dispatched by the Shanghai Public Security Bureau on site to monitor the petitioners and the situation.
On June 24th at the Pudong New Area Court, rights activist Song Jiahong filed an administrative lawsuit against the Shanghai Municipal Communication Administration for dereliction of duty. On the morning of June 25th at the Jing’an District Court, the lawsuit of 95-year-old relocation resident Liu Shuzhen regarding information disclosure from the World Expo relocation was heard. In the afternoon of June 25th at the Shanghai Second Intermediate Court, Qin Yirong’s civil lawsuit on health rights went to a second trial. Despite being public hearings, each of these cases drew around 10 to 20 Shanghai petitioners attempting to sit in, only to face restrictions that ultimately allowed only a few to enter.
Song Jiahong told a reporter, “I filed a case against the Shanghai Municipal Communication Administration for dereliction of duty. Thirteen petitioners tried to attend as observers, but security prevented them from entering. Isn’t this unreasonable? As a result, Chief Judge Yang Chengyu instructed the court clerk to allow only 5 people in, while the rest were blocked by security.”
On the morning of June 25th at the Jing’an District Court, several petitioners gathered outside, intending to observe the case of 95-year-old relocation resident Liu Shuzhen. Despite their efforts, only three petitioners were eventually allowed inside to observe.
In the afternoon of June 25th at the Shanghai Second Intermediate Court, disabled petitioner Qin Yirong’s civil lawsuit on health rights went to a second trial scheduled for 2:15 pm. Even before 1:30 pm, over 20 petitioners had crowded outside the court waiting to observe. Five police officers and five security guards were deployed to prevent them from entering. Subsequently, a large-bodied judge came out and announced that seven individuals could enter.
According to the on-site petitioners, Qin Yirong argued, “Isn’t the court hearing supposed to be public? Why aren’t we allowed in?” Eventually, the judge inside permitted seven individuals to enter.
Petitioners who were unable to observe the proceedings expressed frustration, questioning, “How can prostitution rings be tolerated by the court, yet we are denied the right to observe?” They stood guard at the entrance, waiting for Qin Yirong’s session to conclude.
Qin Yirong, a resident of Yangpu District, has been in a long-standing battle for justice since 2003 when a demolition company illegally destroyed her family’s house without following proper legal procedures. This incident led Qin Yirong and her husband onto the path of seeking justice.
At that time, Judge Liu Liang of the Yangpu District Court wrongly ruled in favor of the demolition company. The case was later overturned by the Second Intermediate Court, creating deep-seated animosity between Qin Yirong and Liu Liang. Liu Liang, due to his unsavory reputation, was transferred to work in the Wujiaochang Street Office as the head of safety, then promoted to head of the petition office and eventually became a supervisor in the Urban Management Department. He began a campaign of retaliation against Qin Yirong.
In 2011, during the renovation of the Yang family’s house, Liu Liang led a group of individuals to demolish their courtyard, leaving Qin Yirong’s husband so furious that he collapsed on the spot and spit blood.
Over the years, Qin Yirong has sought justice at the local police station multiple times but suffered physical assaults from Liu Liang. Recounting the acts of violence, Qin Yirong described, “His methods were extremely brutal – he knocked out one of my teeth, cracked my head open requiring three stitches, and violently beat me while I was on the ground, almost blinding me. While I was pregnant with an IVF baby, he caused me to have a miscarriage. My husband fell ill due to the stress and eventually passed away. My family was destroyed by Liu Liang!”
“Despite sustaining injuries six times and filing four complaints, all surveillance footage and evidence were destroyed by the police station and local authorities. During the legal process, Liu Liang provided false evidence abusing his power, and only the current head of safety was willing to testify. The first-instance judgment by the Hongkou Court intentionally did not record key details, ruling that Liu Liang only needed to compensate me 1010 yuan for damages and 1000 yuan for legal fees, although I had paid the lawyer a total of 10,000 yuan,” Qin Yirong explained.
“Some attendees of the hearings remarked, ‘Qin Yirong’s story is truly heartbreaking. We watched the proceedings in tears from start to finish, but what good does it do when corruption runs rampant in the system?'” others said.
Song Jiahong commented, “Upon reviewing Article 130 of the Constitution, it states that courts handling cases, unless specified otherwise by law, should be open to the public. This grants citizens the right to be informed, to observe, and to supervise. In the past, when seating was insufficient, additional seating arrangements were made, or in cases of high public interest, live broadcasts were conducted. Our society is progressing, yet the courts are regressing!”