The principle of statutory judges and the designation of jurisdiction

Li Shaqin, Master of Law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law

Abstract: The mainland criminal procedure jurisdiction system is not guided by the principle of statutory judges, so there are many defects: the criteria for initiating the designation of jurisdiction are not clear, the specific standards of the designated competent court are also questionable, in practice there are pre-judgments on trial jurisdiction by investigation jurisdiction and prosecution jurisdiction, the lack of jurisdictional objection system, and disputes over the trial level and time applicable to the designation of jurisdiction. Therefore, it is necessary to take the principle of statutory judges as the guide, clarify the applicable circumstances of the designation of jurisdiction and the factors to be considered in determining the jurisdiction unit, adhere to the central position of trial jurisdiction and establish a jurisdictional objection system, and should negate the legality of the application of designated jurisdiction at the second-instance trial stage. Adhering to the principle of statutory judges is an inevitable requirement for achieving procedural justice, and it is also an important guarantee for achieving substantive justice.

Keywords: statutory judges designate jurisdiction jurisdiction objection litigation jurisdiction

The principle of statutory procedure requires the State to initiate criminal proceedings and thus interfere with the individual rights of citizens, must have a clear authorization of the law, and should strictly abide by the conditions and steps and methods set by law, and the principle of statutory judges is the expression of the legal principle of procedure at the trial stage. The statutory judge principle requires that the jurisdiction of the court over any particular case must be determined on the basis of an abstract principle predetermined by law, prohibiting the provisional formation of a tribunal to hear a case. The aim is to prevent the administration of justice from manipulating the outcome of trials by manipulating who will try them, thereby guaranteeing a fair trial of cases. It can be said that the connotation of the principle of statutory judges reflects the procedural and statutory nature of the exercise of jurisdiction required by the principle of procedural law. In the context of the general application of the principle of statutory judges in civil law systems, germany is even more in the context of a constitutional principle, the provisions on jurisdiction in the Continental Code of Criminal Procedure are not guided by the principle of statutory judges, resulting in a series of problems in the continental jurisdiction system, and the shortcomings in the designation of jurisdiction are particularly prominent.

1. Deficiencies in the designation of jurisdiction

The principle of statutory judges requires the courts to determine the competent courts and trial judges of the case in accordance with the standards predetermined by law, and the courts and judges determined according to the standards should be clear and specific. According to article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Mainland on the designation of jurisdiction, the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China divides the circumstances of designating jurisdiction into two categories. First, jurisdiction may be designated in cases where jurisdiction is unclear, and second, other circumstances in which jurisdiction is designated, but the specific circumstances are not stated in the law itself. This is inconsistent with the clear and specific requirements of the statutory judge principle for determining the standards of the court. Combined with the provisions of Article 16 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the circumstances of the criminal procedure law's primary power. However, the specific circumstances included are still not clearly answered from the interpretation.

On the other hand, it is also questionable what the specific criteria for a higher court to designate a court with jurisdiction over a case are. The answer cannot be obtained only from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant judicial interpretations. In practice, the criteria for appointing jurisdiction to determine the court are more internally controlled by the judiciary or determined at random. According to the relevant research summary, when designating jurisdiction, higher-level courts will often consider factors such as case-handling capacity and experience based on case-handling performance, or select geographically similar courts based on litigation costs and efficiency, or consider comprehensively for other factors such as the economic benefits that case-handling organs can obtain from them. That is to say, the factors affecting the designation of jurisdiction by higher courts are diverse and difficult to quantify into a set of clear and unambiguous standards, which inevitably makes the determination of the competent court arbitrary.

Since the designation of jurisdiction exists as an exception to the territorial and hierarchical jurisdiction systems, the Code of Criminal Procedure should, as far as possible, make a clear statement of the circumstances in which the designation of jurisdiction needs to be applied. However, in the case of such a general provision in the law, there is great uncertainty in the competent court, and the discretion of the higher court to initiate the procedure of designating jurisdiction is obviously too large, and it is difficult to reflect the judicial constraints.

Second, the Mainland Criminal Procedure Law only stipulates trial jurisdiction, that is, the corresponding investigation jurisdiction and review and prosecution jurisdiction are determined according to the trial jurisdiction. Its original intention is to ensure the fairness of trials by determining the competent courts, and it can also reflect the concept of trial-centeredness. However, in fact, because the investigation stage is in the front, when there is some kind of unclear or inappropriate jurisdiction in the investigation stage, because the case has not entered the trial stage, it is impossible for the higher court to designate jurisdiction at this time, and it is impossible to clarify the corresponding investigation organ through the determination of the final competent court. Jurisdiction is to be designated by the common higher-level public security organ. Similarly, article 22 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate also stipulates that the procuratorate may designate jurisdiction over four types of cases, which is questionable by "self-authorization". The decision to change jurisdiction involves the major rights of citizens and should be stipulated by law, and it is suspected that it violates procedural laws and regulations through judicial interpretation.

In addition, article 23 of the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by the Ministry of Public Security stipulates: "In cases with designated jurisdiction, if it is necessary to arrest a criminal suspect, the public security organ with designated jurisdiction shall submit it to the people's procuratorate at the same level for review and approval; Where it is necessary to initiate a public prosecution, the public security organ is to transfer it to the people's procuratorate at the same level for review and decision. It can be seen from this provision that the designated jurisdiction of the higher-level public security organ actually plays a prejudging role in the jurisdiction of the review and prosecution stage, that is, after the investigation jurisdiction is designated, the people's procuratorate at the same level of the investigation organ has in fact become the review and prosecution organ. Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate stipulates that in cases where a higher-level public security organ designates another lower-level public security organ to file and investigate a case, the public security organ designated to investigate the case shall submit it to the people's procuratorate at the same level for review and approval of arrest. The procuratorate should also make a decision to approve or disapprove of the arrest in accordance with the law, which undoubtedly recognizes the effectiveness of the investigation's designated jurisdiction.

Similarly, article 23 of the Provisions on Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases reads: "Where a public security organ at a higher level designates jurisdiction, it shall send a written decision on designated jurisdiction to the public security organ designated as jurisdiction and other relevant public security organs, and send a copy to the people's court or people's procuratorate at the same level as necessary for handling the case." The "CC" here is more like a notification, hoping that its designated jurisdiction can be confirmed by the procuratorate and the court. However, relevant investigations have directly shown that because jurisdiction has been designated during the investigation stage, the court is more often reluctant to change its jurisdiction, and consistency with the investigation unit can also facilitate the trial of the case, in fact, it is passively accepting the reality that jurisdiction has been designated. Therefore, although the provisions of the law embody the spirit of deciding the jurisdiction of investigation and the jurisdiction of reviewing and prosecuting by trial jurisdiction, in practice it may be more manifested in the pre-judgment of trial jurisdiction by investigation jurisdiction. In this case, the higher-level investigative organ affects the court hearing the case by designating the jurisdiction of the investigation, and the emergence of the adjudication court "after" the occurrence of the case is contrary to the spirit of the statutory judge.

In addition, article 22 of the Procuratorate's Rules of Criminal Procedure stipulates that in the case where a higher-level procuratorate designates jurisdiction over a case to be examined for prosecution, a consensus shall be reached with the corresponding court. If the higher court has objections to this, that is, there is no provision on how to deal with the situation where the two cannot reach consensus. There are also questions about how the resulting contradictions should be resolved.

Third, the mainland's decision to designate jurisdiction is entirely made ex officio by the higher courts, and the will of the parties cannot be reflected. In practice, the designation of jurisdiction by a higher court is often made in the form of a decision, which has the characteristics of the court's internal authority. As mentioned earlier, the designation of jurisdiction exists as an exception to the statutory jurisdiction system, and its application will inevitably lead to an increase in the litigation costs of the parties, causing various inconveniences to their participation in the litigation, and itself involves the major litigation interests of the parties, and in many countries, the jurisdictional objection exists as a fundamental right of citizens. However, the Mainland Criminal Procedure Law does not provide for a corresponding jurisdictional objection system. Once the higher court makes a decision to designate jurisdiction, the parties to the decision cannot appeal and protest against the decision, coupled with the lack of the corresponding jurisdictional objection system, accepting the trial of the designated court becomes the only choice for the parties. According to the principle of statutory judges, obtaining adjudication by statutory judges should be the basic procedural rights of the parties, and it is closely related to whether the case can be handled fairly. However, under the current laws of the mainland, this right cannot be guaranteed by the system; on the other hand, when the person in charge of the case-handling organ or the case-handling organ itself has an interest relationship with the case, it will inevitably affect the fairness of the case handling, and in the case where the recusal system cannot achieve procedural justice, the parties should be given the right to apply for a change of jurisdiction. At this point, the designation of jurisdiction should become a feasible means, but its authority determines that once a party's objection is rejected, there is no remedy and procedural fairness cannot be reflected.

Finally, there are also questions about the level and timing of the application of the designated jurisdiction, and the "overall recusal case" of the Intermediate People's Court of Liaoyuan City, Jilin Province, has brought the issue of designating jurisdiction in the second instance into the attention of the academic community and aroused huge theoretical controversy. Judging only from the provisions of Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Law on the designation of jurisdiction, the time frame for the designation of jurisdiction is not limited to the first-instance trial stage, and there has been little discussion in the past on whether the second-instance trial should be applied to the designation of jurisdiction. It is generally held that when the court of first instance is determined, the court of second instance is of course determined, that is, the court above the court of first instance. However, when the court at the higher level does have a situation where it is not appropriate to exercise its adjudication power, otherwise it may affect the fair handling of the case, it is doubtful whether the practice of having a second-instance court designated by the higher court has a legitimate theoretical basis. The situation of designating jurisdiction in the second instance is suspected of violating the abstract rules pre-set by the law, so that the court that originally did not enjoy jurisdiction has obtained the jurisdiction of the second instance, so that the adjudicator of the case arises after the case occurs, which violates the spirit of the principle of statutory judges and violates the principle of procedural law.

Second, the development of the problem and response

In view of the current problems existing in the mainland's designated jurisdiction system, it is necessary to analyze the causes behind these problems, and to propose corresponding solutions under the premise of clarifying the context of the problems, guided by the spirit of the principle of statutory judges, so that the mainland's jurisdiction system conforms to the principle of procedural legality, so as to safeguard the fairness of trial.

(1) Clarify the applicable circumstances and considerations for designating jurisdiction

First of all, based on the requirements of the principle of statutory judges, the rules for the generation of adjudicators should precede the occurrence of the case, and the law should set a clear and specific standard in advance to determine the competent court of the case. This requires that the question of jurisdiction of the case be provided for in clear language, as far as possible, in legislation. Judging from the provisions of the Mainland Criminal Procedure Law on the designation of jurisdiction, the circumstances of the application of the designated jurisdiction in the law are extremely vague, and there is a lot of room for interpretation, which undoubtedly gives the higher court a great deal of discretion. Therefore, the scope of jurisdiction and the reasons for the commencement should be clearly specified through legal provisions or judicial interpretations. Based on the guiding ideology that statutory jurisdiction is the basic principle and designated jurisdiction is an exception, the designation of jurisdiction shall be limited to situations in which trial unfairness may be caused in accordance with the principle of statutory jurisdiction, except in cases where jurisdiction is unclear, and the possible situations affecting the fairness of trial shall be typed. Combined with various factors, such factors can be roughly summarized as the bias of public opinion to affect the outcome of the trial, local protectionism threatening trial fairness, and the existence of interests in the case-handling organs or their judicial cadres and police. In practice, however, there are many situations that may affect the fairness of trials, and the exhaustive enumeration is not possible or realistic. Therefore, when providing for the application of designated jurisdiction, in addition to enumerating such typological factors, it is advisable to adopt the form of a bottom clause to make it clear that only under conditions where jurisdiction is unclear and may affect judicial fairness can a higher court designate jurisdiction, so as to curb the arbitrariness of the application of designated jurisdiction.

Since the designation of jurisdiction will have a significant impact on the litigation rights of the parties, it is also necessary to define the criteria for determining the designated jurisdiction unit under the premise of clarifying the circumstances of initiating the designation of jurisdiction. Also for the sake of fair trial, the court designated for jurisdiction must be free of circumstances affecting a fair trial. In addition, consideration should be given to a similar principle of geography in the first place to prevent deviations in the evaluation of the social harmfulness of conduct due to uneven socio-economic development in the place of crime and the seat of the designated competent court, which in turn leads to an imbalance in sentencing. At the same time, the designation of jurisdiction also means that the cost of litigation increases, whether it is the investigation of evidence or the appearance of witnesses in court, there are inconveniences, under the premise of ensuring fairness, based on the consideration of efficiency, the principle of jurisdictional facilitation should be upheld. The court designated for jurisdiction shall be the court that is more convenient to handle the case, reduce costs as much as possible, and meet the requirements of litigation economy. The above criteria shall be clearly stipulated through judicial interpretations, etc., making it clear that this is the element of priority in determining the designated competent court, and the consideration of interests such as case-handling indicators must not be placed before fairness and efficiency, so that the criteria for determining the competent court are as clear and specific as possible.

(2) Persist in the central position of trial jurisdiction

The phenomenon of designating investigative jurisdiction and designating jurisdiction for review and prosecution over trial jurisdiction that has emerged in judicial practice is actually related to the principle of division of labor, mutual cooperation, and mutual restraint among the three organs of the mainland. This assembly-line litigation stage theory makes the investigation, prosecution and trial links relatively independent, which is obviously different from western-style trial centrism. In the case of relative independence in the investigation stage, the designation of investigative jurisdiction is naturally determined by the higher-level investigative organ itself, and is not subject to court review. When the jurisdiction of investigation is determined, the procuratorate with jurisdiction over prosecution and the court with jurisdiction to try can naturally be determined according to the corresponding administrative level. The so-called pre-determination of investigative jurisdiction over trial jurisdiction is in this sense. However, countries that practice trial-centrism take trial as the central link of litigation, criminal proceedings are correspondingly divided into pre-trial stages and trial stages, the pre-trial stage is included in the scope of judicial review, the judicial review system of compulsory investigation makes the implementation of compulsory investigation measures need to obtain the judicial order of the court, the investigation jurisdiction must be subject to trial jurisdiction, and the establishment of a jurisdiction model centered on trial jurisdiction is the due meaning of the litigation structure.

Based on this, some people believe that it is not reasonable for the final stage of trial jurisdiction to decide the jurisdiction of investigation and the jurisdiction of examination and prosecution stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law of the Mainland, and that all three organs should have the right to designate jurisdiction, and when there is a conflict between the designated jurisdictions of the three organs, consultation should be held on an equal footing. It should be recognized that the designation of jurisdiction for investigations and the designation of jurisdiction for prosecution do exist. The relationship between the higher and lower levels of the mainland's public security organs and the procuratorial organs is between the leaders and the led, and the orders of the higher-level organs shall be obeyed by the lower-level organs. Therefore, the theoretical basis for the higher-level investigative and procuratorial organs to designate the jurisdiction of lower-level organs and the lower-level organs to enjoy jurisdiction is the principle of the integration of public security and procuratorate, which is the basis for the construction of the mainland's public security and procuratorial systems. The term "self-empowerment" doesn't really hold up. It is precisely because of the integration of the public security system and the procuratorial system and the obedience of the superior and subordinate that it is necessary to build a jurisdiction system with trial jurisdiction as the center. Because there is a relationship between the superior and subordinate courts, the higher courts cannot arbitrarily interfere with the adjudication of cases by the lower courts. If investigation jurisdiction is the center, the higher-level investigative organ has the right to designate the jurisdiction of any lower-level investigative organ based on the integration of investigation, and determines the corresponding review and prosecution jurisdiction and trial jurisdiction according to the investigation jurisdiction, so that the trial results can be manipulated by manipulating who will try it, which violates the principle of statutory judges. Therefore, the guarantee of fairness in the trial of the case far exceeds the investigation and review of prosecution, and adhering to the principle of judicial jurisdiction as the center is an inevitable requirement of the principle of statutory judges.

Under the premise of establishing the psychological concept of trial jurisdiction, in order to solve the problem of prejudgment of trial jurisdiction over investigation jurisdiction and review and prosecution jurisdiction, it is fundamentally necessary to start with the reform of the mainland's litigation system, change the current litigation structure, establish a trial-centrist litigation model, and bring the pre-trial stage into the scope of judicial review. But this involves the restructuring of the entire criminal procedure system, which is extremely costly. Under the circumstance that the current criminal procedure system remains unchanged, it must be made clear that people's procuratorates at all levels initiating public prosecutions shall be commensurate with the people's courts' adjudication jurisdiction. Where a higher level investigative organ designates jurisdiction, the procuratorial organ at the same level as the public security organ designated for investigation may be responsible for reviewing and approving arrests, but when reviewing for prosecution, the case file must be transferred to the procuratorial organ at the same level as the court that enjoys jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of law, and it is responsible for reviewing the prosecution. The same is true in cases where the higher-level procuratorate designates jurisdiction. For the sake of judicial fairness and litigation economy, the procuratorate at a higher level may consult with a higher court on the issue of designating jurisdiction, and in the event of inconsistencies in consultation, the court's designation of jurisdiction shall prevail.

(3) Establish a jurisdictional objection system

The mainland jurisdiction system has a strong overtone of authority, and the determination of jurisdiction is entirely a matter decided by the court on its own. The court conducts the review ex officio and excludes the participation of the parties. The current Criminal Procedure Law of the Mainland does not clearly stipulate jurisdictional objections, but is only reflected in relevant judicial interpretations and relevant documents. For example, article 184 of the Supreme People's Court Interpretation stipulates that when adjudicators convene a pretrial conference, they may learn from the prosecution and defense about whether they have objections to the jurisdiction of the case and hear opinions. Article 11 of the Regulations on Pretrial Conferences of People's Courts handling Criminal Cases (for Trial Implementation) stipulates that in the event that the defendant and his defender raise an objection to jurisdiction, the people's court shall conduct a review and, on the basis of the results of the review, make a decision to return it to the procuratorate, transfer it to a court with jurisdiction, or reject the objection. Although the above documents mention the circumstances in which the parties raise jurisdictional objections, from its provisions, how to deal with it depends entirely on the unilateral act of authority of the court, and there is no corresponding remedy procedure. As an important part of the parties' right to sue, the right to jurisdictional objection cannot be effectively restrained in the absence of the court's authority, and if the jurisdiction is indeed improper and there is no legitimate remedy, it will undoubtedly hinder the realization of the purpose of protecting human rights in criminal proceedings.

The reason why the designation of jurisdiction should be subject to the litigation rights of the parties lies in the special form of the exercise of judicial power in the mainland. Unlike the independence of judges in Western countries, the subject of the independent exercise of adjudication power on the mainland is the people's court, so it is a kind of collective independence. Under the independent litigation system of judges, the outcome of the case is completely independently decided by the judge in charge of the case, and the administrative force within the court cannot affect the outcome of its trial. Therefore, a recusal system that targets the eligibility of judges is sufficient to guarantee a fair trial of a case. However, in the context of the independence of the mainland courts, based on the adjudication committee system and the administrative tendency within the mainland courts, when the court president or other administrative leader has an interest in the case, it is difficult to guarantee the fairness of the trial of the case only through the recusal system, and the "collective recusal" of the court, that is, the change of jurisdiction, is often required to ensure that the case is fairly tried. However, under the current system in the mainland, when a party raises a jurisdictional objection in order to ensure a fair trial, but the court makes a decision to reject the objection, the party has no other remedy, which makes it difficult to reflect procedural justice. Even if the final judgment result is fair, it will reduce the parties' psychological identification with the judgment result, which is not conducive to their service to the judgment.

Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Law should clarify the specific rules for the court to review jurisdictional objections and the corresponding procedural matters. Where the court finds, upon review, that the objection is not established, it shall reject the objection in the form of a ruling. A party may appeal the ruling to a higher court, and if the higher court finds that the objection is established after trial, it shall designate another court to conduct the trial in accordance with the provisions of law. In this way, the designated jurisdiction can be subject to the litigation rights of the parties and reflect the value of procedural justice. At the same time, reference should also be made to the recusal system, and the erroneous jurisdiction that violates the provisions of the law should be taken as the reason for the second-instance trial to revoke the original judgment, transfer it to a court of competent jurisdiction for retrial and initiate trial supervision procedures, thereby limiting the arbitrariness of the court's designation of jurisdiction, ensuring that the parties have been tried by statutory judges, and so that the case can be handled fairly.

(4) The negation of the designation of jurisdiction in the second instance

The practice of the Jilin Provincial High Court designating the jurisdiction of the second-instance court in the "overall recusal case" of the Intermediate People's Court of Liaoyuan City, Jilin Province, has given rise to two very different opposing views. The opposing view is that the designation of jurisdiction at the second-instance trial stage is an abuse of the designated jurisdiction, while the agreed view is that the provisions of 27 of the Criminal Procedure Law are the basis for the designation of jurisdiction in the second instance, and as long as there is a situation that is not suitable for trial by a court with statutory jurisdiction, the higher court may designate jurisdiction. As a result, there was a fierce debate over whether the second instance could apply the designated jurisdiction.

Although article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Law does not expressly provide for the designation of the applicable trial level of jurisdiction, conclusions can be inferred from other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Articles 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulate that the object of appeal and protest is the court above the court of first instance, that is, when the court of first instance determines, if the defendant appeals or the procuratorate protests, the court of second instance shall determine the court above it, which is clearly stipulated in the law itself. In this context, if article 27 is interpreted as applicable to the second-instance trial stage, it will lead to a conflict of legal provisions, and such an interpretation conclusion is obviously unreasonable.

In addition, the recognition that the second instance can designate jurisdiction will also give rise to a series of problems. In the case where the second instance assigns jurisdiction, once the court of second instance decides to revoke the original judgment and remand for retrial, the question of remanding it to the original court of first instance for a new trial or to a lower court within its jurisdiction for trial will arise. If the case is remanded to the original court of first instance for a new trial, and the defendant files another appeal or the procuratorate raises a protest again, the case should still be heard by the court that was originally considered unsuitable for trial, and then the higher court needs to re-designate jurisdiction, thus falling into a cycle. In the case of jurisdiction designated by the second instance, the litigation procedure does not have the function of good and stable operation at all.

When there are circumstances in which the court of second instance is not suitable for hearing a case, taking into account the interests of the defendant at the trial level, the court of first instance shall report to the high court to designate other grass-roots courts outside the jurisdiction of the court of second instance to have jurisdiction, which is the embodiment of the fair value of criminal proceedings. Some people have questioned that remanding the case back to the court of first instance for retrial and then reporting it to the High Court to designate jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of litigation economy, and believes that the designation of jurisdiction as an exception to statutory jurisdiction should not be limited in terms of trial level and time. As mentioned above, when the court designated by the court with jurisdiction in the second instance remands the case back to the court of first instance for retrial, and the case re-enters the second-instance trial stage due to appeal or counter-appeal, it will face the dilemma that the court at the level above the court of first instance is not suitable for trial, and it must be re-designated by the higher court to promote the smooth progress of the litigation procedure. Compared with remanding for retrial and re-designating the jurisdiction of the court of first instance, the second designation of jurisdiction does not reflect the requirement of the efficiency value of criminal proceedings. Moreover, precisely because the designation of jurisdiction exists as an exception to statutory jurisdiction, it should be strictly limited based on the requirements of the principle of statutory judges. The designated jurisdiction in the second-instance trial stage undermines the organic unity of the autonomous operation of litigation procedures, breaks the abstract rules pre-set by the law to determine the jurisdiction of a specific case, violates the procedural norms clearly set by the law, and violates the requirements of the statutory principles of procedure. Therefore, based on the value pursuit of fairness and efficiency in criminal proceedings, the legality of the second-instance designation of jurisdiction should be denied.

epilogue

Due to the lack of guidance on the principle of statutory judges, there are many shortcomings in the mainland criminal procedure designation jurisdiction system. The principle of statutory judges emphasizes the principle of the jurisdiction system in order to prevent the possibility of artificial manipulation of cases. The current system of designated jurisdiction places more emphasis on flexibility, which leaves room for the administration of justice to manipulate trial results by acts of authority. To this end, it is necessary to clarify the applicable circumstances of the designation of jurisdiction, guided by the principle of statutory judges, and to refine the considerations of the designated court of jurisdiction, so that the standard is clear and specific, so as to ensure that the rules of the adjudicators precede the occurrence of the case. At the same time, based on the guarantee of justice in trial, we must adhere to the central position of trial jurisdiction, establish the concept of trial jurisdiction as the center, and all investigation jurisdiction and prosecution jurisdiction must ultimately be placed on trial jurisdiction. In the context of the litigation structure of continental authoritarianism, it is necessary to establish a jurisdictional objection system so that the court's designated jurisdiction is constrained by the parties' litigation rights, thereby limiting its arbitrariness. Finally, the legality of the second-instance designation of jurisdiction should be denied, and the trial level and time frame applicable to the designated jurisdiction should be strictly limited to ensure the good operation of the litigation procedure. Adhering to the principle of statutory judges in the designation of jurisdiction system is also an inevitable requirement of the principle of procedural statutory law, so that the adjudication process and adjudication conclusions have credibility, and the parties' recognition of the adjudication results is strengthened, so as to promote substantive justice and achieve the value goal of punishing crimes and protecting human rights.