Guide­line sets out mea­sures to over­see ju­di­cial per­son­nel

China Daily (USA) - - CHINA - By ZHANG YI

A guide­line to es­tab­lish a sys­tem of dis­ci­plinary mea­sures for ju­di­cial per­son­nel has been is­sued, a move de­signed to ad­dress vi­o­la­tions of law and dere­lic­tion of duty among judges and prose­cu­tors.

The doc­u­ment, pub­lished on the web­site of the Supreme Peo­ple’s Court on Tues­day, pro­vides ex­per­i­men­tal guid­ing prin­ci­ples to courts and procu­ra­torates at all lev­els across the coun­try as a means to ad­dress er­rors, in­com­pe­tence and dere­lic­tion of duty among judges and prose­cu­tors.

A means to file griev­ances for those be­ing in­ves­ti­gated for al­leged mis­con­duct or wrong­do­ings was also stip­u­lated in the doc­u­ment.

A com­mit­tee on ju­di­cial dis­ci­pline is re­quired to be set up at courts and procu­ra­torates at the pro­vin­cial level as well as in au­ton­o­mous re­gions and mu­nic­i­pal­i­ties.

The of­fice of the com­mit­tee will be set up at the high peo­ple’s courts and procu­ra­torates at the pro­vin­cial level.

The de­ci­sion on mis­con­duct cases, in­clud­ing dere­lic­tion of duty, must be made by more than two-thirds of all mem­bers of the com­mit­tee.

Judges and prose­cu­tors de­ter­mined to be de­lib­er­ately mak­ing wrong de­ci­sions in court cases that have brought se­vere con­se­quences will face dis­ci­plinary mea­sures.

Pun­ish­ments in­clude sus­pen­sion, de­ferred pro­mo­tion, re­moval from their posts, res­ig­na­tion and ter­mi­na­tion of em­ploy­ment.

“The de­ci­sion to set up a com­mit­tee on ju­di­cial dis­ci­pline is of great sig­nif­i­cance in pre­vent­ing ju­di­ciary power be­ing mis­used,” said Jiang Ming’an, a law pro­fes­sor of the Con­sti­tu­tion and ad­min­is­tra­tive law at Pek­ing Univer­sity.

Jiang said more-de­tailed reg­u­la­tions should be made re­gard­ing the pun­ish­ment of ju­di­ciary per­son­nel who are guilty of mis­con­duct.

“For ex­am­ple, the criterion for ‘ma­jor mis­takes’ made by judges and prose­cu­tors should be more spe­cific. The con­se­quences brought by such mis­takes, there­fore, need to be nar­rowed down, too.”

The com­mit­tee on ju­di­cial dis­ci­pline was set up in Qing­hai prov­ince on Wed­nes­day last week. It is com­prised of 15 mem­bers in­clud­ing one di­rec­tor and four deputy direc­tors.

The need for an ac­count­abil­ity sys­tem for ju­di­cial per­son­nel has be­come more ur­gent as a few wrong court rul­ings had been ex­posed in the past cou­ple of years.

In the lat­est case, 27 ju­di­ciary staff were pun­ished in Jan­uary for a wrong de­ci­sion that re­sulted in the ex­e­cu­tion of an in­no­cent teenager in the In­ner Mon­go­lia au­ton­o­mous re­gion in April 1996.

Hugjiltu, the teenager, was ex­e­cuted for mur­der and rape, but was de­clared in­no­cent in De­cem­ber 2014, when it was an­nounced that he was wrong­fully con­victed.


An armed po­lice­man guards the en­trance as a prison ve­hi­cle car­ry­ing Bri­tish for­mer banker Rurik Jut­ting de­parts the High Court in Hong Kong on Tues­day af­ter a jury unan­i­mously con­victed him of mur­der­ing two In­done­sian women in 2014.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China

© PressReader. All rights reserved.