Shanghai Jing’an District rights activist Wang Huifang was subjected to a psychiatric evaluation case. Due to the collective illegal handling and persecution by the Jing’an District Shimen Second Road Police Station, Wang’s family and defense lawyer have applied for the unit handling the case to collectively recuse themselves.
On March 19, 72-year-old Wang Huifang was forcefully intercepted on a bus in Beijing and sent back to Shanghai, where she was detained. The Shimen Second Road Police Station forcibly conducted a psychiatric evaluation on Wang Huifang.
The defense lawyer stated that from the leadership to the police officers of the Shimen Second Road Police Station, they abused their authority by detaining Wang Huifang and once again forcing her to undergo a criminal responsibility psychiatric evaluation (commonly known as being diagnosed with a mental illness). Sentencing Wang Huifang for “provocation and causing disturbances” is just a temporary solution to silence those who accuse them, but declaring those accusers as mentally ill is a permanent way to silence them. This is a cruel form of persecution! Hence, there is a strong demand for the persecutors to recuse themselves!
1. The respondent (Shimen Second Road Police Station) and Wang Huifang have a conflict of interest, and the cause of the so-called “provocation and causing disturbances” charge this time is the illegal handling of the case by the respondent (police station), which was initiated after Wang Huifang reported to the Public Security Bureau, the respondent did not follow legal procedures by not issuing an injury examination notice to the applicant. Instead, they sent the injured applicant to a psychiatric hospital for examination. The psychiatric hospital deemed the applicant mentally sound and refused to admit them, so the respondent had no choice but to send the applicant to Shanghai Changzheng Hospital for examination, and the diagnosis revealed multiple soft tissue injuries all over the body.
2. As a result, the applicant filed for an administrative review and subsequently initiated administrative litigation against the respondent.
The administrative litigation notice is scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2025. However, the respondent has now detained the applicant on charges of “provocation and causing disturbances” at the Jing’an Detention Center. The respondent’s actions aim to permanently silence the accuser, ensuring that they never get a chance to go to court.
3. On March 19, 2025, the applicant went to the Public Security Bureau in Beijing to file a complaint against the respondent. The applicant was given a notice of forwarding to the People’s Visiting Room at the Public Security Bureau. But on the return trip on a Beijing bus, the police controlled the applicant and brought them back to Shanghai to the respondent’s location. The respondent then detained the applicant at the Jing’an Detention Center and personally handled the case against the applicant. The respondent should have recused themselves.
The lawyer believed that the respondent was suspected of abusing power and seeking revenge. As the applicant was constantly accusing the respondent of illegal conduct, the respondent not only failed to investigate themselves but also persecuted the applicant, personally making the arrest and planning to have the applicant declared mentally ill, ultimately intending for the applicant to die in a psychiatric hospital, making the authorities believe that the applicant is delusional and untrustworthy.
Multiple police officers of the respondent have unlawfully deprived the applicant’s defense attorney of their rights and have been lying to the handling attorney, displaying extremely hostile attitudes.
1. The personnel handling the case at the respondent have no list of names. After being appointed, the lawyer went to the respondent’s location on April 2, 2025, to understand the specific officers handling the criminal investigation and to submit the necessary documents and witnesses. However, the police at the respondent’s location claimed that the case was under investigation by the criminal team and refused to accept the materials. Additionally, the director of the Shimen Second Road Police Station said the lawyer was not qualified to know details of the case. Both the director and the police at the respondent’s location falsely claimed that the “provocation and causing disturbances” case was being investigated by the Jing’an Criminal Team.
2. The handling lawyer received astonishing information on April 8, 2025, indicating that the applicant detained on charges of “provocation and causing disturbances” at the Jing’an Public Security Sub-bureau had no record in the case files, indicating that they were unaware of such a case.
The respondent failed to hand over the case to the criminal team for investigation but kept it in their own hands, initiating a vendetta against the accuser (the applicant) and registering the case as one of revenge, retaliation, and a plot to have the applicant declared mentally ill.
3. The handling lawyer visited the respondent’s location again to meet with their superiors. A police captain who identified himself as Wei received the lawyer. Only then did the respondent allow the lawyer to proceed with the defense procedures, but still refused to disclose the name of the handling officer until the lawyer demanded their recusal. Not revealing the handling officer’s name was a violation of the applicant’s right to recusal. It was only when the police officer claiming to be Wei prov…
Shanghai rights activist Yu Zhonghuan, who has been following Wang Huifang’s case, told a reporter from The Epoch Times: “Public Security police stations rarely log the detention of petitioners into the public security network. Government officials and the police can manipulate petitioners as they please, with no regard for the law. This is a common practice and has become normalized. Failing to register detentions in a timely manner is clearly illegal.”