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] The two lawyers stated in their complaint that after separately taking on the cases of Xu Youchen and Zhang Xiaoyu, they met with their respective clients on July 25. When they requested another meeting on July 26, the Jiaozuo City Detention Center refused to arrange the meeting on the grounds that the lawyers had taken photos of the suspects and uploaded them to the internet. They were also informed by Liu Jinbin and Liu Shuqing that a legal opinion had been submitted to the Shandong Provincial Department of Justice requesting action against the two lawyers, and that no further meetings would be arranged until the two were dealt with by the judicial authorities where their law firm is located. Subsequently, the two plaintiffs went to the Jiaozuo City Detention Center multiple times with lawful and complete documentation to request meetings, all of which were unreasonably refused. “In order to defend their right to meet with clients, the plaintiffs submitted an application to the Shandong Provincial Lawyers Association, requesting that the Shandong Provincial Lawyers Association step in to safeguard lawyers’ legitimate practice rights. The Shandong Provincial Lawyers Association also communicated with the Henan Provincial Lawyers Association. According to feedback provided to the plaintiffs by the Shandong Provincial Lawyers Association, the Henan Provincial Lawyers Association also made efforts on behalf of the plaintiffs’ right to meet with clients, but the defendant still turned a deaf ear.”
Both plaintiffs contend that the specific administrative act by the Jiaozuo Detention Center in refusing to arrange a meeting between the plaintiffs and their clients is unlawful. "This is because arranging lawyer-client meetings is a bound administrative act with no discretion." The detention center's refusal to arrange a meeting when the representing lawyers held complete and lawful documentation is clearly unlawful, not only infringing upon the lawyers' right to meet but also depriving the case parties of their litigation rights. Liu Shuqing pointed out during the hearing that criminal judicial acts share a common characteristic: they can obtain public relief during the trial phase. For example, if there is torture to extract confessions, one can apply for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence; if unlawfully criminally detained, one can apply for state compensation. However, when a detention center deprives lawyers and suspects of their right to meet, neither the lawyer nor the suspect has a corresponding channel for self-remedy within the criminal proceedings. 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 have petitioned for many years. On July 17, 2014, they were intercepted in Beijing and brought back to Jiaozuo. According to the local official report, Wang Jungan, a community police officer at the Zhongzhan Police Station, was attacked with a knife by Xu Youchen when he tried to persuade the two to get out of the vehicle and accept investigation and questioning, and died after serious injuries. Subsequently, Xu Youchen and Zhang Xiaoyu were criminally detained on suspicion of intentional homicide and are currently at the stage of examination and prosecution.)
(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.
Is the conduct of a detention center then actionable? During the trial of this case, the defendant, the Jiaozuo City Detention Center, cited the Criminal Procedure Law, the Regulations on the Administration of Detention Centers, the Administrative Litigation Law, and relevant judicial interpretations, stating that “the detention center’s custody and management of criminal suspects, including arranging lawyer meetings with the parties in accordance with the law, are criminal judicial acts authorized by law and do not constitute actionable specific administrative acts as stipulated in the Administrative Litigation Law. The court should not accept such lawsuits, and those already accepted should have their claims dismissed.”
During the court hearing, the Jiaozuo Detention Center cited Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Law several times to justify its actions as criminal judicial acts. This article stipulates the right of lawyers to meet with suspects, the procedures for such meetings, and three situations in which a lawyer's meeting with a suspect requires approval from the investigative authorities: cases involving crimes endangering national security, terrorist activities, and particularly major bribery crimes. Article 47 of the same law, also cited, provides that if a defender or litigation representative believes that a public security organ, a people's court, or their staff have obstructed the lawful exercise of their procedural rights, they have the right to appeal or file a complaint with the people's court at the same or the next higher level. The people's court shall promptly review the appeal or complaint and, if the circumstances are verified, notify the relevant organ to make corrections.
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, when lawyer-client meetings could only begin at the stage of examination and prosecution, many courts indeed, when hearing relevant cases, mostly handled administrative lawsuits arising from detention centers preventing lawyers from meeting with criminal suspects based on the view that “how to arrange for lawyers to meet with criminal suspects is an act carried out by public security organs during criminal investigation, and disputes arising therefrom should be handled in accordance with laws and regulations related to criminal procedure, and do not fall within the scope of administrative litigation jurisdiction.” However, under the current rule of law environment, such a judicial view has seriously violated the legal principles of fairness and justice and is clearly inappropriate.
In summary, the right of lawyers to meet with clients is a prerequisite for lawyers to exercise other procedural rights in criminal proceedings and should be protected by law. Lawyers enjoy many rights in criminal proceedings, such as accepting entrustment by criminal suspects during the investigation stage to provide legal assistance, and accepting entrustment by criminal suspects during the review and prosecution stage or by defendants during the trial stage to conduct defense, all of which involve a broad range of procedural rights. Therefore, among these procedural rights, the right of lawyers to meet with clients is the most fundamental one, serving as the prerequisite and foundation for lawyers to exercise other procedural rights conferred upon them by law in criminal proceedings.
