Breakthroughs in Judicial Reform

In addition to such trial broadcasts, a succession of measures to boost judicial publicity have been launched. On November 21, the Supreme People’s Court opened its official microblog and WeChat account. Less than a week later, the court released opinions on building three platforms to open up the judicial process and release judgment documents and executive information. On the first day of 2014, the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Online Issuance of Judgment Documents by People’s Courts came into force, requiring judgment documents from more than 3,000 courts nationwide to be viewed by netizens. This has been regarded as a highlight of judicial publicity reform, embodying China’s determination to further advance transparency in its legal system.

In fact, public security bodies at different levels have been required to publicize law enforcement and case handling information via official websites and short messages since the start of 2013. They have also provided inquiry services and regular information on law-and-order matters, fire and road traffic safety, and safety precautions. “Judicial publicity is an important means to prevent judicial corruption and promote judicial credibility. It is also a force to drive judicial fairness and efficiency,” said Professor Cao Yisun of China University of Political Science and Law.

Unblocking the Institutional Bottleneck

The judicial system is an important part of the legal system. In recent years, complaints about the unfairness of the judiciary have been on the rise and its waning credibility could be attributed largely to the irrational workings of the system.  

 “Judicial independence solves the disproportional power disposition of the judicial system,” Cao said. He went on to explain that there are currently two flaws in the existing judicial system, “Internally, the upper and lower levels of judicial offices are not independent, and the lower level offices have to submit to opinions of the upper level on cases; externally, the staff, finance and resources of the judicial office are controlled by the local government. This results in less power to exclude factors influencing the case. The judicial office, therefore, is not independent enough to guarantee an independent judgment.” 

The Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee demanded reform of the judicial system to promote unified management of the staff, finance and resources of the courts and pro-secutorates below the provincial level, and to explore a system that is discrete from the administrative divisions. It also put forward improvements in the operating system of the judicial powers and an accountability system whereby the presiding judge and collegiate bench jointly make judgments and take equal responsibility.  

The Intermediate People’s Court in Foshan, Guangdong Province is one of the pilot courts selected by the Supreme Court to trial the new judicial authority operating system. Since March 2013, the court has been the first in the country to implement presiding judge accountability. It selected 35 presiding judges to take charge of cases, and established the mode “1 presiding judge + 3 or 4 collegiate judges + several judicial assistants and court clerks.” It endowed relatively complete rights on presiding judges to make them “real judges.” 

The Supreme Court also carried out pilot projects in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong and Shaanxi. It required the pilot courts to strictly implement related regulations on procedural law, establish an operating system of judicial power in line with legal rule and eradicate administrative interference during the procedure; strictly implement the accountability of the presiding judge, collegiate bench and judicial committee to ensure the unification of power and responsibility; improve the procedural rules and working mechanism of the judicial committee; and regulate the scope of case discussions. The pilot study was supervised and assessed by the Supreme Court, who will publicize their findings and roll out the new mode nationwide if the system is deemed successful.   

“If there is no judicial independence, justice is compromised,” said Cao. “The presiding judge should have the power of independent judgment in cases because making judgment is a rational action, not the whim of leading officials or administrative powers. Therefore, delinking the judiciary from the local government is one of the most important reform targets.” 

Doubling Plan for Jurors

Since 2004, China has officially operated a people’s juror system and explicitly defined the nature, status, duty, selection, appointment and responsibility of jurors. In the last decade, the rate of cases in which people’s jurors have participated has increased year by year. As of November 2013, the rate reached 72.73 percent in the ordinary procedure of trials of the first instance.

The people’s juror system is one of the embodiments of the Chinese socialist judicial democracy. But there are several flaws in the current juror system that need urgent attention. The low percentage of regular Chinese citizens participating in the jury is one such problem.Currently, among a total of 87,000 jurors, the majority are members of governmental or CPC institutions. In 2013, the Supreme Court launched a “doubling project,” aiming to increase juror numbers to about 200,000 in two or three years. It put special emphasis on the representativeness and scope of people’s jurors. Also on the need to select people of different genders, ages, ethnic and social groups, so as to guarantee that no less than two thirds of new jurors are members of the general public.  

In February 2009, the First Criminal Division of Henan Province’s Higher People’s Court took the lead in inviting ordinary people to constitute a “people’s jury” in a widely-concerned public hearing of the second instance involving a death penalty trial. The people’s jury participated in the trial and gave opinions on judgment for the reference of the collegiate bench, which aroused strong feedback in the country. In 2010, the court promoted the people’s jury system in the province. This further guaranteed people’s right to express opinions and supervise while ensuring their right to participate. “Increasing the number of ordinary people in a jury allows people to become familiar with judicial procedures,” said Cao. “People usually trust those they understand and can relate to. If they are familiar with the actions of the judicial office, they are more likely to trust the judicial system. The move to include a cross section of society in juries will increase the credibility of the legal system,” Cao added.