The other shoe is about to drop, lawyers gain new rights—the third review of the Criminal Procedure Law

 Focus on the Sixth Session of the 13th National People's Congress

On the afternoon of October 22, the sixth session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress deliberated the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law. This was the third review of the draft Criminal Procedure Law following the fifth session of the Standing Committee.

 The expedited procedure does not apply when the defendant is a minor.

The second draft specified circumstances where the expedited procedure does not apply. Some members of the Standing Committee, departments, and experts pointed out that in handling criminal cases involving minors, trial methods conducive to the care and education of minors are typically adopted in practice, along with court education for minors, while the expedited procedure makes it difficult to fully reflect the policy of education, persuasion, and rescue.

The third draft added a provision that the expedited procedure does not apply when the defendant is a minor.

Additionally, the second draft stipulated that if, during the application of the expedited procedure, the court finds that the defendant has pleaded guilty and accepted punishment against their will, denies the alleged criminal facts, or other circumstances unsuitable for the expedited procedure, the case shall be retried in accordance with the general procedure.

The third draft added the circumstance where “the defendant’s act does not constitute a crime or criminal responsibility should not be pursued.”

 [2] Strictly control the application conditions of the trial in absentia procedure.

The second review draft added a chapter on "trial in absentia procedures." To ensure that courts strictly guard the entry point of case review, the third review draft stipulates that, in addition to examining whether the indictment contains clear facts of the alleged crime, it is also necessary to review whether the conditions for applying the trial in absentia procedure are met.

A major highlight of the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law is the introduction of a trial in absentia system for criminal suspects and defendants who have fled overseas, thereby strengthening efforts and measures to pursue fugitives abroad. Previously, fugitive “corrupt officials” could only stand trial after being repatriated. Now, the draft stipulates: for cases of embezzlement and bribery, as well as serious cases of endangering national security and terrorist activities that require timely trial and have been approved by the Supreme People’s Court, where criminal suspects or defendants have fled overseas, and the supervisory or public security organs have transferred the case for prosecution, if the people’s court determines that the criminal facts have been fully clarified, the evidence is reliable and sufficient, and criminal responsibility should be pursued in accordance with the law, a public prosecution may be initiated with the people’s court. After review, if the indictment contains clear facts of the alleged crime and meets the conditions for applying the trial in absentia procedure, the people’s court shall decide to hold a trial.

 [5] The court may file a protest against a judgment rendered in absentia.

[6] To fully protect the rights of the defendant, the second review draft stipulates that the defendant or their close relatives have the right to appeal to the higher people's court if dissatisfied with the judgment. The defense counsel may file an appeal with the consent of the defendant or their close relatives.

Some members of the Standing Committee proposed that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, a regulation should be added to allow the People's Procuratorate to file a protest against a default judgment.

The third draft added a provision: if the People's Procuratorate finds that a judgment of the People's Court is indeed erroneous, it shall file a protest with the People's Court at the next higher level.

 Clarify the investigative subject status of the China Coast Guard.

In June of this year, the third session of the Standing Committee adopted the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the Exercise of Maritime Rights Protection and Law Enforcement Powers by the China Coast Guard.

To align with the Decision and ensure the smooth conduct of lawful crackdowns on maritime crimes, the third draft of the supplementary provisions added a regulation: the China Coast Guard, in performing its maritime rights protection and law enforcement duties, shall exercise investigative powers over criminal cases occurring at sea. When handling criminal cases, the China Coast Guard shall apply the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law.

Previously, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress reviewed the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law twice, with the first two reviews focusing mainly on major issues such as the investigation, transfer, review, and prosecution of duty-related crime cases under the national supervision system reform. This major revision of the Criminal Procedure Law will also directly impact lawyers' participation in criminal case defense work, such as whether lawyers can intervene during the investigation of duty-related crime cases, the default judgment system, and the criminal expedited procedure system—issues of concern to the legal community. Zhiming Law Firm will continue to monitor the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law and the opportunities and challenges it brings to criminal defense lawyers.

(Source: People's Court Daily)