Two lawyers sue detention center for violating their right to meet clients

[Prompt] Because their requests to meet with detained clients were repeatedly denied, two lawyers from Shandong Province separately sued the Jiaozuo City Detention Center in Henan Province. Yesterday, the Shanyang District Court of Jiaozuo City held a hearing for these two administrative lawsuits, where the plaintiffs and defendants debated whether the detention center's refusal to allow lawyers to meet with clients is actionable.

[Case] In their complaints, the two lawyers stated that after separately representing the cases of Xu Youchen and Zhang Xiaoyu, they met with their clients on July 25. When they requested another meeting on July 26, the Jiaozuo City Detention Center refused to arrange it, citing that the lawyers had taken photos of the suspects and uploaded them online. The detention center informed Liu Jinbin and Liu Shuqing that it had submitted a legal opinion to the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice requesting action against them, and that no further meetings would be arranged until the lawyers' law firm's supervisory judicial department had dealt with them. Subsequently, the two plaintiffs, holding complete and lawful documents, repeatedly went to the Jiaozuo City Detention Center to request meetings, but were unreasonably refused each time. "To defend the right to meet, the plaintiffs submitted an application to the Shandong Lawyers Association, requesting it to intervene to protect the lawyers' legitimate professional rights. The Shandong Lawyers Association also communicated with the Henan Lawyers Association. According to feedback from the Shandong Lawyers Association to the plaintiffs, the Henan Lawyers Association made efforts regarding the plaintiffs' right to meet, but the defendant still turned a deaf ear."

Both plaintiffs believe that the Jiaozuo City Detention Center's specific administrative act of refusing to arrange meetings with their clients is illegal. "Because arranging for lawyers to meet with clients is a binding administrative act by the detention center, with no discretionary power." The detention center's refusal to arrange meetings when the lawyers held complete and lawful documents is clearly illegal, not only infringing on the lawyers' right to meet but also depriving the parties of their litigation rights. During the trial, Liu Shuqing pointed out that criminal judicial acts share a common characteristic: they can receive public relief during the trial stage. For example, if there is torture to extract confessions, one can apply for the exclusion of illegal evidence; if one is illegally criminally detained, one can apply for state compensation. However, when the detention center deprives lawyers and suspects of the right to meet, neither the lawyers nor the suspects have corresponding channels for self-relief within the criminal procedure. This is also the difference between criminal judicial acts and specific administrative acts.

Neither of these two administrative lawsuits was decided in court yesterday.

(Background: Xu and Zhang are a married couple who had been petitioning for years. On July 17, 2014, they were intercepted from Beijing and returned to Jiaozuo. According to local official reports, when community police officer Wang Jungan from Zhongzhan Police Station tried to persuade them to get out of the car for investigation and questioning, Xu Youchen attacked him with a knife, causing severe injuries that led to his death. Subsequently, Xu Youchen and Zhang Xiaoyu were criminally detained on suspicion of intentional homicide and are currently in the review and prosecution stage.)

(Southern Metropolis Daily)

[Legal Study] The right of lawyers to meet refers to the right, during criminal proceedings, for lawyers to meet with criminal suspects and defendants as provided by law. Through meetings, lawyers learn about the crimes the suspects or defendants are accused of and related case details, hear the suspects' or defendants' opinions on the charges and their defenses, thereby better providing legal assistance to the suspects and better defending the suspects or defendants.

So, is the detention center's action actionable? During the trial of this case, the defendant, Jiaozuo Detention Center, cited the Criminal Procedure Law, the Detention Center Management Regulations, the Administrative Procedure Law, and relevant legal interpretations, stating that "the detention center's custody and management of criminal suspects, including arranging lawyer meetings with clients in accordance with the law, are criminal judicial acts authorized by law, and do not fall under the actionable specific administrative acts stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Law. Courts should not accept such lawsuits, and if accepted, should dismiss the claims."

Among these, the Jiaozuo Detention Center repeatedly cited Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Law during the trial to prove that its actions were criminal judicial acts. This article stipulates the lawyer's right to meet with a suspect, the procedures for such meetings, and three situations where a lawyer must obtain permission from the investigative authority to meet with a suspect: cases involving crimes endangering national security, terrorist activities, and particularly serious bribery crimes. Also cited was Article 47 of the same law, which states that if a defender or litigation representative believes that a public security authority, people's court, or their staff have obstructed their lawful exercise of litigation rights, they have the right to file a complaint or accusation with the same-level or higher-level people's court. The people's court must promptly review the complaint or accusation, and if the situation is verified, notify the relevant authority to correct it.

In response, the plaintiff argued that the Criminal Procedure Law explicitly authorizes the public security authority's basic functions in criminal proceedings as investigation, criminal detention, execution of arrest, and preliminary inquiry, and that the public security authority cannot grant itself other powers. The detention center's management tasks, such as arranging lawyer meetings with clients, fall within the scope of the public security authority's administrative functions, and its refusal to allow lawyer meetings is an actionable specific administrative act.

In practice, especially during the era of the old Criminal Procedure Law, where lawyer meetings could only begin at the stage of examination and prosecution, many courts indeed handled related cases with the view that "how to arrange lawyer meetings with criminal suspects is an act carried out by the public security authority during criminal investigation, and disputes arising from this should be handled according to relevant criminal procedure laws and regulations, and do not fall within the jurisdiction of administrative litigation." This perspective was used to address administrative lawsuits caused by the detention center blocking lawyer meetings. However, under the current legal environment, such a trial perspective seriously violates the legal principle of fairness and justice and is clearly outdated.

In summary, the lawyer's right to meet with clients is a prerequisite for lawyers to realize other litigation rights in criminal proceedings and should be protected by law. Lawyers have many rights in criminal proceedings, such as accepting a criminal suspect's entrustment during the investigation stage to provide legal assistance, accepting a criminal suspect's entrustment during the examination and prosecution stage, or accepting a defendant's entrustment during the trial stage to provide defense, all of which involve extensive litigation rights. Therefore, among these litigation rights, the lawyer's right to meet with clients is the most fundamental right and is the prerequisite and foundation for lawyers to realize other litigation rights granted by law in criminal proceedings.