How did the courtroom of the Liaoyuan Intermediate Court become a place for Chief Judge Shi and Chief Judge Wang to "settle scores" with each other?!
Recently, a live-streamed court hearing from the Liaoyuan Intermediate People's Court went viral online. In the video, the presiding judge (Shi, chief of the No. 2 Criminal Division of the Liaoyuan Intermediate People's Court) was hearing a case involving civil judicial misconduct, and standing in the defendant's dock was none other than Shi's colleague, Wang, chief of the No. 3 Civil Division of the Liaoyuan Intermediate People's Court. They were colleagues, and remained colleagues even during the trial. A colleague trying a colleague——what a spectacular drama unfolded. Whether you call it a palace intrigue or a revenge play, one thing is clear: Judge Shi showed Judge Wang no courtesy whatsoever, brimming with righteous indignation, which indeed left Judge Wang feeling aggrieved. In reality, the dispute centered on one question——whether the Liaoyuan Intermediate People's Court, as Judge Wang's employer, needed to recuse itself in hearing the case involving Judge Wang's alleged crimes (recusal of the judge, recusal of the collegial panel, recusal of the adjudication committee, and even the argument that the entire Liaoyuan Intermediate People's Court lacked jurisdiction). Below the bench, the defendant Judge Wang and his defense lawyer, Attorney Xu, argued from legal principles to common sense, covering every angle, but Judge Shi on the bench remained impassive and firmly insisted on proceeding with the trial. The video runs 48 minutes, consisting entirely of both sides repeatedly raising and contesting the issue of recusal. This prompted the author to reflect as follows.
1. Does Chief Judge Shi really not understand recusal? From the trial video, Chief Judge Shi is at least middle-aged or older, certainly not a green young man. As a criminal trial judge of an intermediate court, could he possibly not understand the recusal system? Or is his understanding of the recusal system even more lacking than that of a lawyer?
2. Judge Shi was fully aware that this was a live-streamed online trial with a far greater degree of public exposure than an ordinary court hearing, yet during the proceedings it was evident that he stubbornly persisted in desecrating procedural justice. One can only imagine, had this been a closed hearing or one not live-streamed to the public, to what extent of arbitrariness he would have wielded his judicial authority.
3. The request for recusal of the judicial committee was denied in court by Presiding Judge Shi, who also prohibited any reconsideration—what an abuse of power! Current law does not explicitly provide for the recusal of judicial committees, which can be considered a new issue; even if not a new issue, it is at least a new circumstance encountered during trial. Yet Judge Shi, without any deliberation, directly denied in court the defendant's and defense counsel's request for recusal of the judicial committee and prohibited reconsideration. As a second-instance criminal judge, to respond so rashly and to show such disregard for the parties' statutory rights!
Although short, this video is thought-provoking. More than substantive justice, our society expects procedural justice. Yet in the course of China’s legal development, procedural justice has been inherently deficient and has suffered from stunted growth. Some events that violate the principles of the judiciary are even held up as models of selflessness, while placing righteousness above family loyalty and refusing to show favoritism are revered as embodiments of justice. But what people fail to realize is that this kind of justice depends on personal integrity and conscience for its realization. Yet no one is a saint. Can you guarantee that every judicial officer is an iron-faced Bao Zheng? Procedural justice means achieving justice from the source, without depending or relying on capricious human nature!
Regardless of any personal grievances or conflicts between Chief Judge Shi and Chief Judge Wang, focusing solely on their years of collaboration as colleagues of equal rank—both serving as chief judges—it is inevitable that their relationship involves some emotional elements. Based on my years of experience working in government agencies, I have observed that a certain competitive dynamic exists between them. This aligns with the legal provision that judicial personnel must recuse themselves if they have “other relationships with the parties that could affect the impartial trial of the case.” Therefore, if Chief Judge Shi were a judge who strictly adheres to the law and justice, he should have proactively considered recusal at the earliest opportunity, rather than ignoring the recusal request both during the pre-trial conference and in open court. Even putting that aside, if Chief Judge Shi does not recuse himself and the trial proceeds, would there not still be suspicions of impropriety? Even the defendant, Chief Judge Wang, remarked: “If the Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court finds me guilty this time, I will not accept it; if it finds me not guilty, the public will harbor doubts.” What an awkward dilemma this presents!
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 builds an outstanding team of legal professionals; procedural justice builds a society governed by the rule of law.
