Recently, the WeChat guidance of a court in Qinghai has sparked heated discussions on the Internet, and the core of the incident is whether the higher court guided the lower court to hear the case through a WeChat group is compliant and legal.
This reflects the contradiction between "procedural justice" and "substantive justice" in the construction of the rule of law in China today. How to correctly handle the relationship between the two and make the judicial process and the substance of the case take into account both is an issue that we need to think about in depth.
There were irregularities in the trial procedures of WeChat guidance
It is reported that a local court in Qinghai Province openly retried a case, and the judge of the second instance of the original trial, that is, the president of the intermediate court of that place, conducted a "remote control" command of the retrial judge's trial in a WeChat group, and there were instructions such as "no need to consult with him" and "interrupt". This sparked strong dissatisfaction among the lawyers involved in the trial.
In response, the relevant parties admitted that there were irregularities in the supervision and management of the intermediate courts, but said that the higher courts had a guiding relationship with the lower courts, and the guidance work was in accordance with the regulations. However, the public has generally questioned the legitimacy of this WeChat guidance.
In this regard, it should be made clear first that mainland law does give the higher courts the right to supervise and guide the lower courts. According to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, "the people's courts shall implement the system of establishing high people's courts in provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government; Establish intermediate people's courts and basic people's courts.
Loading...
The High People's Court supervises the adjudication work of the lower people's courts. The Organic Law of the People's Courts also makes it clear that the higher people's courts shall guide the judicial work of the lower people's courts.
At the same time, the law restricts the supervisory power of the higher courts. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that a higher people's court cannot directly dictate how a lower people's court should handle a specific case. Therefore, a higher court cannot bypass the legal procedure and directly exert influence on the judgment of a specific case of a lower court. This is an important guarantee for safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.
In this case, the higher-level judge directly instructed the lower-level judge to speak and interrupt during the court session through a WeChat group, which has seriously exceeded the statutory authority for supervision and guidance, and is an act of ultra vires, and there are obvious violations of laws and regulations in the procedure.
The guidance of the higher courts must also respect the judicial independence of the lower courts. According to the Organic Law of the People's Courts, "the people's courts shall not be subject to interference by administrative organs, social groups or individuals in adjudicating cases, except where they shall be recused by law."
Loading...
Trial judges have the duty to adjudicate independently in accordance with law, and the guidance of a higher court cannot deprive trial judges of their decision-making power. Otherwise, it will also be suspected of violating legal procedures.
From the perspective of procedural justice, the WeChat guidance behavior of the higher court in this case did violate the rules and needs to be corrected. However, the supervision and management department only stated that "the regulatory measures are not standardized", and did not clearly point out the seriousness of the problem, and there seems to be an understatement in its attitude. This has also become the focus of suspicion from the outside world.
Substantive justice needs urgent attention
While paying attention to the procedural irregularities in this case, it should also be noted that this reflects the problem of overemphasizing "procedural justice" and ignoring "substantive justice" in China's judiciary today.
The so-called procedural justice means that the judicial process should be fair, open, and independent, and there should be no violations of laws and regulations; Substantive justice, on the other hand, focuses on whether the judicial outcome can achieve substantive fairness and justice. Ideally, procedural justice and substantive justice should be achieved simultaneously. However, in actual judicial practice, there is often a conflict or even a disconnect between procedural justice and substantive justice.
In the first instance of this case, the defendant may indeed have committed illegal acts and should be punished in accordance with the law. However, due to various reasons, the first-instance judgment may not fully reflect the substantive justice of the case. In order to correct the erroneous verdict, the higher court tried to exert influence on the trial process through WeChat groups, but the means violated the requirements of procedural justice.
Loading...
This phenomenon is mainly due to the fact that the judicial system in mainland China places too much emphasis on the standardization of judicial procedures, but does not give much consideration to how to better achieve substantive justice under the premise of due process. For example, the choice of judges is excessively restricted, resulting in the inability to make a fair judgment based on the actual circumstances of the case; Judges pay too much attention to the data on the conviction rate and the reversal rate, which will also affect the focus on the substance of the case.
Emphasizing procedural justice alone can easily lead to the mere formality of justice and ignore the realization of fairness and justice. Therefore, it is necessary to face up to and properly handle the relationship between procedural justice and substantive justice, so that the two can be organically unified.
Improve systems to ensure the realization of justice
In order to solve the problem, it is necessary to start from various aspects, so that procedural justice and substantive justice can be jointly valued and realized.
First of all, the protection of judges' independent adjudication rights should be strengthened through system design. For example, the power of higher courts to intervene in the trial of specific cases is further restricted, while judges are given the corresponding autonomy to make decisions based on the circumstances of the case and the evidence. Only by ensuring the independence of judges through the system can procedural justice and substantive justice be better implemented.
It is necessary to strengthen the building of the contingent of judges and enhance the professional quality and professional ethics of judges. Judges must not only strictly abide by legal procedures, but also pay attention to substantive justice, and need solid legal expertise and a keen sense of social justice. By strengthening the training and management of judges, we will ensure the construction of a team of high-quality judges.
There is also a need to increase public understanding and support for the administration of justice. To make the public aware of the importance of both procedural and substantive justice in the administration of justice, and that both are indispensable. At the same time, there is also a need for public supervision, so that the judicial organs can pay more attention to the realization of substantive justice in cases on the basis of ensuring procedural norms.
The issue of procedural justice and substantive justice reflected in this incident is not an isolated case, but a difficult point that needs to be focused on in the construction of China's rule of law. Only by further deepening the reform of the judicial system and enabling procedural justice and substantive justice to be realized together can the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case. Let us look forward to the arrival of a rule of law in China.