20 November 2014

Chinese Lawyers Fear Chilling Effect in Courtroom if Proposed Amendment Made to Criminal Law

The following opinion (original text here) has already been signed by more than 250 Chinese lawyers. 

Legal Opinion on Article 35 of the
Ninth (Draft) Amendments to the Criminal Law

We are a group of legal professionals who care about the rights of lawyers and reform of the judicial system who have taken note of the draft for the Ninth Round of Amendments to the Criminal Law (hereafter, “draft amendments”) that was published on the website of the National People’s Congress (NPC). After serious study and discussion, we are unanimous in finding major problems with the revisions proposed in Article 35 of the draft amendments. Below, we present our legal opinion on this matter for the reference of the members of the NPC Standing Committee who will decide on these amendments.

Article 35 of the draft amendments would revise Article 309 of the Criminal Law (hereafter, “CL 309”) to the following:
Whoever engages in one of the following acts, and thereby seriously disrupts the order of the court, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance or be fined.

(1) Gathering people to stir up trouble in a court or attack the court;
(2) Beating a judicial officer or participant to the litigation;
(3) Insulting, defaming, or threatening a judicial officer or participant to the litigation after being told by the court to stop;
(4) Engaging in other acts that seriously disrupt the order of the court.”
Compared to the current text of CL 309, one sees that the draft amendment adds “insulting, defaming, or threatening a judicial officer or participant to the litigation” and “engaging in other acts that seriously disrupt the order of the court” to the circumstances covered under the crime.

We believe that this revision violates two basic principles of the Criminal Law, runs counter to the direction of China’s judicial reform, and would seriously undermine the procedural justice that is an especially prized part of the judicial process.

Our detailed reasoning is as follows:

First, as a matter of legal parlance, “insulting,” “defaming,” or “threatening” are all words of a strongly subjective nature. Different judges and prosecutors in different contexts and under different emotional conditions will use these words in completely different ways, making it very difficult to predict their meaning. As for the fourth item, “engaging in other acts that seriously disrupt the order of the court,” this is an extremely flexible “pocket clause.” We ask: What acts constitute “disruption”? At precisely what degree does “disruption” become “serious”?

This amemndment cannot answer these questions, and, therefore, it does not possess the necessary explicitness required of a Criminal Law provision. The principle of nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without legal statute) necessitates that criminal statutes be expressed explicitly to prevent judicial personnel from differential or arbitrary application of the criminal law and thereby protect the freedom and security of the public. At the same time, explicit criminal law provisions enable people to predict whether their behavior has the potential to violate the criminal law and thereby promote law-abiding behavior throughout society.

Second, this amendment violates the criminal law’s necessity principle. Insult, defamation, and threats, as well as other acts that disrupt court order, can all be fully dealt with through things like reprimands, fines, or judicial detention, which have the effect of punishing the behavior without resort to the criminal law. Serious cases of insult or defamation or serious disruption of court order are already covered by appropriate criminal statutes, and threats should not be criminalized if they do not result in consequences. Moreover, considering that the entire trial process is carried out in the presence of court police officers, there is already a full ability to control and resolve any such situations that may arise during the trial. The existing CL 309 statute already establishes a set of criminal circumstances; there’s no need to further lower the threshhold for what is considered criminal.

Third, this amendment runs counter to the direction of China’s judicial reforms and does not help to further establish a criminal trial process centered on the trial, in which judges are neutral and prosecution and defense are given equal standing. This amendment, which is flexible and lowers the threshhold of what is considered criminal, will make lawyers feel the need to tread carefully, as if they were walking on thin ice. Criminal defense lawyers will be particularly afraid of being faulted at every turn and thus not dare to speak their minds fully at trial in defense of their clients. This will tilt the already unbalanced playing field between defense and prosecution even further in favor of the prosecution. This not only restricts defendants’ right to defend themselves and undermines procedural justice; it also prevents the judicial panel from fully investigating the facts of the case and will ultimately lead to an increase in the rate of wrongful conviction.

Fourth, when we consider the current reality of criminal trials in China, other than conflicts between prosecution and defense, there are a great number of conflicts between judges and defense lawyers. This amendment will make defense lawyers increasingly timid in the face of judges. In an inquisitorial trial system, judges take the leading role in the proceedings. In trial practice, judges are quite often estremely arrogant and bossy toward defense lawyers, interrupting them for no reason as they speak and even depriving them of their rights to defend their clients.

If this amendment becomes law, one can well imagine what the impact will be on the mindset of defense lawyers. A defense lawyer who is servile and obsequious to a judge will inevitably not dare to fully express his or her defense opinions. The hidden consequence will inevitably be as we have already stated above: a restriction of defendants’ right to defend themselves, undermining procedural justice, and increase in the rate of wrongful conviction.

This is why Article 16(a) of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers makes clear that “governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.”

Based on the above, Article 35 of the draft amendments ought to be eliminated and there should be no change made to the existing text of CL 309.

We hope that members of the NPC Standing Committee will be motivated by their sense of high responsibility and seriously consider our legal opinions.

(the undersigned)

09 October 2014

Mainland Citizens Express Support for True Universal Suffrage for Hong Kong, Demand Release of Detained Mainland Citizens

(Original Chinese text can be found here.)

Statement of Support for
True Universal Suffrage for Hong Kong People and
Demand for Release of Mainland Citizens
Detained for Supporting Hong Kong Protests

Over the last several days, members of Hong Kong society have been protesting for true universal suffrage in the 2017 election of their chief executive. These protests have captured the attention of people in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, mainland China, and other Chinese communities around the world, as well as the attention of international public opinion. Meanwhile, we are filled with concern and righteous anger at the detention of dozens of mainland citizens for expressing support for the demands of the citizens of Hong Kong! As fellow Chinese who have a shared sense of destiny and are bound by a common cause, we feel the urgent need to make the following statements:
  1. The central issue of Hong Kong society’s protest for true universal suffrage in the 2017 chief executive election is their strong argument that citizens should have the right to nominate candidates for the position of chief executive. We believe that this is an inalienable right to which Hong Kong people are reasonably entitled as the masters of Hong Kong and that there is no question that their demands are reasonable.

  2. We fully understand, respect, and support the protest demands of our Hong Kong compatriots and urge our brothers and sisters to carry out their struggle for rights in a civilized and rational manner. We firmly oppose and condemn all abuse of official power, violation of human rights, and the use of violence or concealed violence against our compatriots.

  3. Hong Kong’s chief executive Leung Chun-ying must take responsibility for misleading the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee with his political report, and he must conscientiously improve channels of communication and continue to listen patiently and carefully to the forthright admonitions being presented by people from all sectors of Hong Kong society and take effective measures to remedy the problem.

  4. The authorities in charge must clearly understand the unique and difficult evolutionary path and options available to Hong Kong and adhere to the the policy of “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy,” and follow the tide of international and domestic political civilization. The must push for an NPC Standing Committee decision that truly accords with the sincere wishes of the Hong Kong people, that elates and inspires Chinese in the mainland and around the world, and that will be accepted by the mainstream of international society. We demand that the police immediately release all mainland citizens who have been illegally detained for supporting the reasonable demands of Hong Kong citizens.

  5. At this moment in time, we feel more certain than ever of the inseparability of Hong Kong from the mainland and of the importance of civil and political rights to the development of our nation, the  revival of our people, and the happiness of each individual. As the ancient saying goes: “The people are the roots of a country; when the roots are firm, the country will be peaceful.” On this point, we also call on the NPC Standing Committee to begin work without delay to enact legislation to safeguard and promote direct elections in the mainland for county and township leaders and people’s congress deputies at the prefectural level and above, in order to better realize citizens’ rights to vote and stand for election, return government to the people, and do everything possible to establish a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people!

5 October 2014

16 September 2014

Nine Lawyers File Formal Complaint Accusing Police of Unlawful Detention

(Original Chinese text here, roughly translated below.)

To: Beijing Municipality People's Procuratorate

  1. Zhang Lei, Beijing lawyer. (Law firm name and contact details redacted here and below.)
  2. Dong Qianyong, Beijing lawyer.
  3. Wang Yu, Beijing lawyer.
  4. Hu Guiyun, Beijing lawyer.
  5. Chen Jian’gang, Beijing lawyer.
  6. Li Guobei, Beijing lawyer.
  7. Yu Wensheng, Beijing lawyer.
  8. Wang Xing, Beijing lawyer.
  9. Li Jinxing, Shandong lawyer.

Accused (criminal suspects):
  1. Tian Yunsheng, male, chief of Changping Branch of Beijing Public Security Bureau
  2. Liu Gang, male, captain of Changping Branch PSB “Domestic Security” Unit
  3. Zhang Dazhi, male, deputy chief of Huilongguan Police Station
  4. Li Shiwu, male, police officer at Huilongguan Police Station
  5. Li Jinshan, male, police officer at Huilongguan Police Station
  6. Li Zhenxin, male, police officer at Huilongguan Police Station

Subject of Complaint: Pursuit of criminal responsibility in accordance with the law for the crime of unlawful detention committed by the accused

Facts and Legal Rationale:

On the morning of September 5, 2014, the accusants went to the Changping District “Sunshine Halfway House” located in Beixiaoying West Village, Machikou Town, Changping District, Beijing, with the intention of attending a hearing to be conducted by the Changping District Judicial Administration Bureau regarding its proposed one-year suspension of lawyer Cheng Hai’s license. The notice previously issued by the Changping District Judicial Administration Bureau said that the hearing would be conducted in public. After the accusants arrived at the location, they discovered that the gate of the venue was shut and many police and unidentified individuals were blocking the entrance and preventing people from attending.

At approximately 10 a.m., a large group of police suddenly surrounded the accusants and others, forcing them to board one of several buses that had just arrived. Someone dressed in a police uniform announced that the accusants were the subjects of an oral summons, and then the accusants were taken under duress to the Machikou Police Station of the Changping Branch PSB. Later, the accusants and others were forcibly taken to the Huilongguan and Shisanling police stations, where they were detained. During this time, the accusants had their personal items confiscated and were deprived of their personal liberty. Police unlawfully collected the accusants’ personal data, including height, weight, fingerprints, and DNA. (Because he fought desperately to resist, police did not collect this data from accusant Chen Jian’gang and they also did not collect personal data from accusant Wang Xing.) The accusants demanded to leave but were not permitted to do so. Their unlawful detention continued until midnight on September 6. The nine accusants were unlawfully detained for 14 hours.

The accusants have learned that on the same day several dozen law-abiding citizens were also unlawfully detained by police in Changping in the same manner as the accusants.

The accusants maintain that, in the complete absense of any suspicion of illegal or criminal acts, the  abuse of compulsory summons power by the Changping police against several dozen citizens on the pretense of “disruption of work-unit order” is a classic example of abuse of official power and use of what looks like lawful measures (compulsory summons) to cover up an unlawful goal (unlawful detention).

According to the provisions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate Regulations Regarding Standards for Investigating Criminal Cases of Dereliction of Duty and Violation of Rights: “Unlawful detention refers to the use of detention or other means to unlawfully deprive a person of his or her personal liberty. State employees who use their official powers to carry out unlawful detention shall be subject to criminal investigation when it involves one of the following circumstances: . . . (5) Unlawful detention of three or more persons; (6) Unlawful detention by law-enforcement personnel with knowledge that the person detained has not committed any illegal or criminal act.”

The unlawful detention by Changping police of the accusants potentially constitutes a criminal act. To carry out the unlawful detention of the accusants, the Changping police mobilized more than 100 police officers, several dozen police vehicles, and even a police helicopter. The accusants thus have reason to believe that the persons directly responsible for this large-scale act of unlawful detention are Tian Yunsheng, chief of the Changping Branch PSB, and Liu Gang, captain of the Changping Branch PSB “Domestic Security” Unit. Zhang Dazhi, Li Shiwu, Li Jinshan, and Li Zhenxin are accused of directly carrying out the unlawful detention of eight of the accusants (excluding Wang Xing). The actions of these six accusants violated the provisions of Article 238 of the Criminal Law of the PRC, which prohibits unlawful detention.

We hereby submit these accusations and request criminal investigation in the interest of punishing crime, upholding the dignity of the law, maintaining the serious nature of state power, and preventing public employees from using their positions to commit crimes that ruin China’s national image.

Furthermore, if the accusants discover that there are others who must bear responsibility for this incident of unlawful detention, we shall remain committed to pursuing this accusation to the end, no matter who those people are or what their status might be.

Sincerely, Zhang Lei,
Wang Yu,
Dong Qianyong,
Hu Guiyun,
Chen Jian’gang,
Li Guobei,
Yu Wensheng,
Wang Xing,
Li Jinxing (accusants)

15 September 2014

01 July 2014

ACLA Issues Formal Notice Distancing Itself from Rights Lawyers

The following notice was published on page 2 of the 30 June 2014 edition of Legal Daily, the official organ of the CCP Central Politico-Legal Commission:


Recently, our association has discovered that some individuals who have never obtained a license to practice as a lawyer or who have had their licenses revoked or suspended have been acting as and identifying themselves as lawyers, misleading other lawyers and the general public. In order to protect the image and reputation of the legal community, we hereby issue the following notice:

Tang Jitian, Liu Wei, Zheng Enchong, and Tang Jingling have all had their lawyer licenses revoked. Wang Cheng, Jiang Tianyong, and Teng Biao have all had their licenses canceled. None of these individuals is a lawyer, and none of their activities have anything to do with the legal profession.

We respectfully request that lawyers and the general public take note.

All-China Lawyers Association, Membership Division
30 June 2014


This response from Wang Cheng, via Weibo:

Stern Statement: In light of the ACLA statement published yesterday in Legal Daily, which stated “Wang Cheng . . . [has] had [his] license to practice canceled,” I hereby make the following stern statement: 1. To date, the Zhejiang Province Department of Judicial Administration has never informed me that my license to practice has been canceled; 2. In the coming days, I will pursue legal measures to hold the ACLA, Legal Daily, and the Zhejiang Department of Judicial Administration responsible.


This response from Tang Jitian, via Facebook:

Tang Jitian’s “Stern Statement”

On 30 June 2014, the membership division of the ACLA published a statement in the Legal Daily (the organ of the Central Politico-Legal Commission), stating: Tang Jitian et al. have all had their lawyer licenses revoked, none of their activities have anything to do with the legal profession, we respectfully request that lawyers and the public take note.

To this, I hereby issue the following statement:

  1. After working as a lawyer, I earned the wrath of powerful departments for handling human rights cases involving dissent and belief and for promoting the professional autonomy of lawyers (by proposing direct elections of the Beijing Lawyers Association). In May 2010, my license to practice was revoked on groundless charges by the Beijing Municipality Bureau of Judicial Administration. On 9 September of that year, I filed suit with the Xicheng District Court in Beijing, but after receiving my documents the court refused to accept the case and never issued any written decision. I have been deprived of my litigation rights ever since.
  2. After my license to practice was illegally revoked, I continued to participate in human rights cases as an ordinary citizen and provide the best legal assistance to others I could possibly provide. I have never deliberately concealed the fact that I did not have a license to practice.
  3. The primary responsibility of the ACLA should be to protect the rights and interests of lawyers, but consciously or not it acts as a foot soldier for powerful departments to retaliate and persecute lawyers.

In today’s world, no one can hold back the tide of economic liberalization and political democratization. If those senior leaders in the ACLA cannot return to their original positions as lawyers and continue to act as thugs, they will inevitably be nailed to history’s pillar of shame!

No amount of noise can make me drop my human rights work. I welcome generous instruction from lawyers and other individuals.

Tang Jitian
1 July 2014  

16 June 2014

Lawyers Call for Rule Change after Police Refuse Meeting with Detainees on "State Security" Grounds

Original text here. For background, see here and here.

121 Legal Professionals Sign Citizen Petition Calling on State Council to Revise Article 374 of the Procedural Regulations for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs

15 June 2014

To: State Council of the People’s Republic of China

We are practicing lawyers and legal professionals in the People’s Republic of China. Recently, lawyers acting as defense counsel in a case in Zhengzhou, Henan, involving individuals suspected of gathering a crowd to disrupt order in a public place were illegally deprived of their right to meet [with clients] by the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center and the Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau (PSB). The basis upon which the Zhengzhou PSB deprived these lawyers of their legitimate right to meet with clients was Article 374 of the Procedural Regulations for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs (MPS Decree No. 127, hereafter “Regulations”). After serious study and comparison between the Regulations and the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), we believe that Article 374 of the Regulations is prone to ambiguity and makes an expanded interpretation of Article 37(3) of the CPL.

The details are as follows:

The Zhengzhou PSB placed Henan lawyers Chang Boyang 常伯阳 and Ji Laisong 姬来松 under criminal detention along with reporter Shi Ping 施平 [a.k.a. Shi Yu 施玉] on suspicion of gathering a crowd to disrupt order in a public place. After being appointed by their relatives, defense lawyers presented their lawyer’s licenses, visit applications, and letters of appointment to the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center and requested to meet their respective clients. However, the detention center refused to arrange meetings, stating that it had received written instructions from the investigating organ that the latter must give prior approval before any meetings between defense lawyers and suspects in this case. The defense lawyers pointed out that it was illegal to refuse to arrange meetings because the offense alleged in this case was an ordinary crime not covered under the provisions of Article 37(3) of the CPL concerning need for prior approval for meetings.

With the detention center turning a deaf ear, the defense lawyers had no choice but to intervene with the Zhengzhou PSB. Deputy Chief Zhong Zhicai 钟志才 of the Zhengzhou PSB replied: “Even though the offense in this case is ordinary, the case involves matters of endangering state security and meetings with lawyers require approval in accordance with the law.” The defense lawyers pointed out that there was no legal basis for this and that it was a violation of the CPL. Deputy Chief Zhong said that they were implementing Article 374 of the Regulations, which states that “crimes of endangering state security” included both the state security offenses in Chapter I of the enumerated offenses of the Criminal Law and other offenses that endanger state security, and that the situation of Chang Boyang and Ji Laisong falls under the category of “other crimes that endanger state security.”

We believe that the Zhengzhou PSB’s reading of the Regulations is in error. But even setting aside the matter of whether or not their reading is correct, we believe the Regulations themselves are prone to ambiguity. The Regulations are internal rules enacted by the MPS in order to implement the CPL. According to the Legislation Law, they may not expansively interpret the provisions of superior law. According to Article 37(3) of the CPL, “In cases involving crimes of endangering state security, terrorist activity, or especially serious bribery, defense lawyers wishing to meet with suspects who are in custody during the preliminary investigation stage shall first receive approval from the investigating organ.” Here “ESS offenses” is clearly meant to be specific; in other words, “Crimes of Endangering State Security” in Chapter I of the enumerated offenses of the Criminal Law. There is nothing about “and other crimes that endanger state security.” The MPS Regulations are obviously an expanded interpretation of Article 37(3) of the CPL.

If no change is made to Article 374 of the Regulations, local investigators can arbitrarily deprive defense lawyers of their right to meet with clients in any ordinary case on the grounds that the case “involves matters that endanger state security.” This indirectly deprives suspects of their procedural rights, which will undoubtedly lead to violations of procedural justice—the importance of which it should be unnecessary to discuss in greater detail.

Therefore, in order to ensure the unity between human rights and the Chinese legal system, Article 374 of the Regulations should be revised in accordance with the law.

Therefore, we request that the State Council use its official powers to revise Article 374 of the Procedural Regulations for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs (MPS Decree No. 127).

N.B.: A copy of this recommendation letter will be sent to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, calling on it to carry out its oversight of the “exercise of official duties by the State Council. We welcome lawyer colleagues to sign and defend the right of lawyers to meet with clients.


Liu Shuqing 刘书庆 (Shandong, lawyer)
Lin Qilei 蔺其磊 (Beijing, lawyer)
Zhang Junjie 张俊杰 (Henan, lawyer)
Fu Yonggang 付永刚 (Shandong, lawyer)
Jiang Yuanmin 蒋援民 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Qin Yongpei 覃永沛 (Guangxi, lawyer)
Jiang Tianyong 江天勇 (Beijing, lawyer)
Zhang Zhongshi 张重实 (Hunan, lawyer)
Li Ruyu 李如玉 (Jiangsu, law Ph.D.)
Pang Kun 庞琨 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Feng Yanqiang 冯延强 (Shandong, lawyer)
Shi Yongsheng 石永胜 (Hebei, lawyer)
Chen Jian’gang 陈建刚 (Beijing, lawyer)
Liang Xiaojun 梁小军 (Beijing, lawyer)
Liu Weiguo 刘卫国 (Shandong, lawyer)
Tang Jitian 唐吉田 (Beijing, lawyer)
Yue Jinfu 岳金福 (Shandong, lawyer)
Wu Kuiming 吴魁明 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Ge Wenxiu 葛文秀 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Liu Sixin 刘四新 (Beijing, lawyer)
Wen Yu 闻宇 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Li Dawei 李大伟 (Gansu, legal professional)
Zhang Lei 张磊 (Beijing, lawyer)
Chen Shuqing 陈树庆 (Zhejiang, lawyer)
Teng Biao 滕彪 (Beijing, lawyer)
Cheng Weishan 程为善 (Jiangsu, lawyer)
Chen Jinxue 陈进学 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Lan Zhixue 兰志学 (Beijing, lawyer)
Sui Muqing 隋牧青 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Jiang Yongji 蒋永继 (Gansu, lawyer)
Deng Wei 邓巍 (Shandong, lawyer)
Xu Guijuan 许桂娟 (Shandong, lawyer)
Situ Yiping 司徒一平 (Shandong, lawyer)
Zheng Xiang 郑湘 (Shandong, lawyer)
Shu Xiangxin 舒向新 (Shandong, lawyer)
Li Chunfu 李春富 (Beijing, lawyer)
Zhang Keke 张科科 (Hubei, lawyer)
Li Jinxing 李金星 (Shandong, lawyer)
Zhang Chuanli 张传利 (Beijing, lawyer)
Ran Tong 冉彤 (Sichuan, lawyer)
Zhang Weiyu 张维玉 (Shandong, lawyer)
Chen Jinshi 陈金石 (Hunan, lawyer)
Wang Cheng 王成 (Zhejiang, lawyer)
Li Heping 李和平 (Beijing, lawyer)
Li Fangping 李方平 (Beijing, lawyer)
Wang Quanping 王全平 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Ge Yongxi 葛永喜 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Chen Keyun 陈科云 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Liu Zhengqing 刘正清 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Liu Shihui 刘士辉 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Wu Zhenqi 吴镇琦 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Xie Yang 谢阳 (Hunan, lawyer)
Xu Can 徐灿 (Beijing, lawyer)
Chen Wuquan 陈武权 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Wang Quanzhang 王全章 (Beijing, lawyer)
Hu Guiyun 胡贵云 (Beijing, lawyer)
Zhao Yonglin 赵永林 (Shandong, lawyer)
Liu Wei 刘巍 (Beijing, lawyer)
Zheng Enchong 郑恩宠 (Shanghai, lawyer)
Zhou Lixin 周立新 (Beijing, lawyer)
Fan Biaowen 范标文 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Liang Xiubo 梁秀波 (Henan, lawyer)
Li Weida 李威达 (Hebei, lawyer)
Yu Quan 于全 (Sichuan, lawyer)
Liu Wei 刘伟 (Henan, lawyer)
Wang Zongyue 王宗跃 (Guizhou, lawyer)
Xiao Fanghua 肖芳华 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Zhang Guo 张国 (Hunan, lawyer)
Guo Lianhui 郭莲辉 (Jiangxi, lawyer)
Li Changming 李长明 (Beijing, lawyer)
Wei Youyuan 魏友援 (Jiangxi, lawyer)
Tong Chaoping 童朝平 (Beijing, lawyer)
Huang Yuzhu 黄聿珠 (Shandong, lawyer)
Xiao Guozhen 肖国珍 (Beijing, lawyer)
Xue Rongmin 薛荣民 (Shanghai, lawyer)
Liang Lanxiang 梁澜馨 (Hebei, lawyer)
Liu Lianhe 刘连贺 (Tianjin, lawyer)
Deng Shulin 邓树林 (Sichuan, lawyer)
Wang Xueming 王学明 (Shandong, lawyer)
Xu Hongwei 徐红卫 (Shandong, lawyer)
Xu Tao 徐涛 (Hubei, lawyer)
Peng Jian 彭剑 (Beijing, lawyer)
Hou Lingxian 候领献 (Heilongjiang, lawyer)
Xu Xianghui 徐向辉 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Qin Lei 秦雷 (Shanghai, lawyer)
Wang Yu 王宇 (Beijing, lawyer)
Wang Xing 王兴 (Beijing, lawyer)
Xi Xiangdong 袭祥栋 (Shandong, lawyer)
Liu Xiaoyuan 刘晓原 (Beijing, lawyer)
Wang Shengsheng 王胜生 (Guangdong, lawyer)
Ma Lianshun 马连顺 (Henan, lawyer)
Zhang Hai 张海 (Shandong, lawyer)
Zou Lihui 邹丽惠 (Fujian, lawyer)
Liu Jinbin 刘金滨 (Shandong, lawyer)
Xu Zhong 徐忠 (Shandong, lawyer)
Zhang Zanning 张赞宁 (Jiangxi, lawyer)
Yu Wensheng 余文生 (Beijing, lawyer)
Wei Liangyue 韦良月 (Heilongjiang, lawyer)
Yu Guoqiang 喻国强 (Hunan, lawyer)
Fang Qing 方庆 (Henan, lawyer)
Wang Lei 王磊 (Henan, lawyer)
Chen Yixuan 陈以轩 (Hunan, lawyer)
Deng Linhua 邓林华 (Hunan, lawyer)
Zhu Xiaoding 朱孝顶 (Beijing, lawyer)
Xu Silong 许思龙 (Yunnan, lawyer)
Cai Ying 蔡瑛 (Hunan, lawyer)
Liu Yan 刘彦 (Shandong, lawyer)
Zhang Jiankang 张鉴康 (Shaanxi, lawyer)
Zhang Kai 张凯 (Shandong, lawyer)
Zhang Weiyun 张维云 (Beijing, lawyer)
You Feizhu 游飞翥 (Sichuan, lawyer)
Huang Hanzhong 黄汉中 (Beijing, lawyer)
Liu Xinming 刘新明 (Xinjiang, lawyer)
Liu Xinwei 刘新伟 (Shandong, lawyer)
Li Guangming 李光明 (Shandong, lawyer)
Fu Jianbo 付剑波 (Chongqing, lawyer)
Long Zhongyang 龙中阳 (Hunan, lawyer)
Huang Yizhi 黄溢智 (Beijing, lawyer)
Zhuang Daohe 庄道鹤 (Zhejiang, lawyer)
Gao Chengcai 高承才 (Henan, lawyer)
Liu Jinxiang 刘金湘 (Shandong, lawyer)

14 June 2014

Liu Weiguo: "If I am Arrested"

If I am Arrested by Liu Weiguo 刘卫国

If I am arrested one day,
Friends, fellow lawyers,
You must
Go public
          take a stand
                      and make a fuss.

If I am arrested one day,
Friends, fellow lawyers,
You must
Treat it like a political issue.

If I am arrested one day,
Friends, fellow lawyers,
You must
Refuse to deliver depressing or dispiriting news.

That is not who I am.
Most certainly not who I am.

Further reading:
Zhang Xuezhong Discusses Strategy in the Pu Zhiqiang Case
Arrested Chinese Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang Speaks from Prison

11 June 2014

Learning to Count Under China's Criminal Procedure Law

You might have already heard that one of the magic numbers in Chinese criminal procedure is 37.

Individuals placed under criminal detention by investigators can be held in custody for a maximum of 37 days without any intervention by any other authority. That is, criminal detention can last for up to 30 days, at which point the investigating body must (a) apply to the procuratorate (prosecutor's office) for permission to carry out formal arrest, (b) release the suspect on guarantee pending further investigation or into residential surveillance, or (c) release the suspect outright. In case of (a), the procuratorate then has seven days in which to make a decision, during which time the suspect generally remains in custody—so, a total of 37 days.

Here, I'll only mention in passing that criminal detention is, in theory at least, not intended to be used nearly as routinely as it is and that the degree to which detentions are regularly stretched to their 30-day limit also goes well beyond the rather limited set of circumstances for which such detention is provided by law. (For more on this subject, see this.)

My real interest, though, is the question of how to calculate the relevant deadlines with respect to this magic number. It's not nearly as simple as you might think.

First of all, one must be aware that criminal detention may be preceded by up to 24 hours of questioning under the procedure of criminal summons. So, for example, if police come to my home on 1 May with a warrant for me to appear for questioning, they can question me at the police station for up to 24 hours before issuing an official detention notice. Only after this notice is issued am I considered to be under criminal detention.

The second complicating factor is that Article 103 of the Criminal Procedure Law states, in part: "Time periods are calculated in hours, days, and months. The initial hour or day does not count toward the time period."

What does this mean in practice? Let's say my criminal detention notice was issued at 8 p.m. on 1 May. For the purposes of calculating my detention, the clock starts ticking at midnight on 2 May, meaning that 30 days would expire at 11:59:59 p.m. on 31 May. Note that this would be true whether I was placed under detention at 12:01 a.m. or 11:59 p.m on 1 May. In any of these cases, for the purposes of counting the days, you would start from midnight on 2 May.

So, in this hypothetical situation, if the police wanted to arrest me, they would have to send their request to the procuratorate on 31 May at the latest. The subsequent seven days would start from midnight on 1 June, meaning that the procuratorate would have to issue a decision by the end of the day on 7 June.

It's worth pointing out that, other than what I've cited above, the law is not too specific about when to start counting. What I've provided here is the most common scenario, likely to apply in the majority of instances. But, as they say, your mileage may vary.