[2] Recently, a live-streamed trial by the Liaoyuan Intermediate Court went viral. In the video, the presiding judge (head of the Criminal Division II of Liaoyuan Intermediate Court), Shi, was hearing a case of civil perversion of justice, while standing in the defendant's dock was none other than Shi's colleague, the head of the Civil Division III of Liaoyuan Intermediate Court, Wang. They were colleagues, even still colleagues during the trial. A colleague judging a colleague unfolded a dramatic spectacle. Whether it was a palace intrigue or an act of revenge, it was clear that Judge Shi showed no mercy toward Judge Wang, brimming with indignation, leaving Judge Wang to plead his grievance. In fact, the dispute centered on whether the Liaoyuan Intermediate Court, as Wang's workplace, needed to recuse itself when hearing Wang's alleged criminal case (recusal of the judge, recusal of the collegial panel, recusal of the judicial committee, or even arguing that the entire Liaoyuan Intermediate Court lacked jurisdiction). Below the bench, the defendant Judge Wang and his defense attorney, Lawyer Xu, argued exhaustively from legal principles to human sentiments, but Judge Shi on the bench remained unmoved, firmly insisting on proceeding with the trial. The 48-minute video was a repeated back-and-forth over the requests for recusal and the refusal to recuse. Thus, the author cannot help but draw the following insights.
 

[3] 1. Did Judge Shi truly not understand recusal? Judging from the trial video, Judge Shi appeared to be at least middle-aged, certainly not a greenhorn. As a criminal judge in an intermediate court, could he be ignorant of the recusal system? Or was his understanding of recusal even more lacking than that of a lawyer?

[4] 2. Judge Shi knew this was a live-streamed trial, with far greater public exposure than a typical hearing, yet during the trial, he could be seen stubbornly trampling on procedural justice. One can only imagine how tyrannically he would wield his judicial authority in a closed or non-streamed trial.

[5] 3. When the defense requested recusal of the judicial committee, Judge Shi immediately rejected it and barred any appeal, wielding his power with no restraint! Current law has no clear provisions on recusal of the judicial committee, making it a novel issue—or at least a new situation arising temporarily during the trial. Yet Judge Shi, without a second thought, directly dismissed the defendant and defense counsel's request for recusal of the judicial committee and prohibited any appeal. As a second-instance criminal judge, such a hasty response showed utter disregard for the parties' legal rights!

[6] Though the video is short, its content is thought-provoking. More than substantive justice, our society yearns for procedural justice. Yet precisely in China's legal development, procedural justice has been inherently deficient and poorly nurtured, with even some events violating judicial principles being hailed as models of selflessness, and acts of sacrificing family for justice or showing no favoritism being revered as embodiments of righteousness. But little is known that such justice relies on individual integrity and conscience, yet humans are not saints—can we guarantee that every judicial officer is an iron-faced Judge Bao? Procedural justice is about achieving justice from the source, without depending on the fickle nature of humanity!

Regardless of any grudges or grievances between Chief Shi and Chief Wang, considering their years as colleagues (both serving as chief judges at the same level. Based on my years of experience in government agencies, there is a certain competitive relationship between them), there must inevitably be some emotional factors involved. This also aligns with the legal provision that judicial personnel have "other relationships with the parties that could affect the fair adjudication of the case." Therefore, if Chief Shi were a judge who strictly adheres to the law and justice, he should have proactively considered recusal at the first opportunity, rather than ignoring the recusal application both in pre-trial meetings and during the trial itself. To put it mildly, even if Chief Shi does not recuse himself and the case proceeds, wouldn't there be suspicion of impropriety? Even the defendant, Chief Wang, said: "If the Liaoyuan Intermediate Court convicts me this time, I will not accept it; if the Liaoyuan Intermediate Court acquits me, the public will have doubts." A dilemma, how awkward!

Substantive injustice is like dark clouds in the sky; when the sun comes out, the clouds will disperse. Procedural injustice is like atmospheric smog; even when the sun comes out, the haze will not dissipate.

Substantive justice creates an excellent legal profession; procedural justice creates a society governed by the rule of law.