1. China’s Supreme People’s Court published Regulations on Pursuing Judicial Responsibility in People’s Courts on Wednesday, imposing lifetime accountability on court personnel who deliberately breach judicial duties or commit gross negligence causing serious consequences, with liability extending to those who have retired, transferred, resigned, been dismissed or expelled. [para. 1][para. 3] The rules cover judges, judicial assistants, enforcement officers, court clerks, judicial police, technical personnel, and court presidents and division chiefs with supervisory roles. [para. 3]
2. These regulations further codify a judicial-accountability system introduced more than a decade ago as part of broader court reforms addressing the old problem where those who heard cases did not rule and those who ruled had not heard them. [para. 4][para. 5] Sun Zhenping of the Supreme People’s Court said the new rules implement the principle that those who hear cases should decide them and bear responsibility. [para. 6] The 47-article, six-chapter document establishes substantive and procedural standards, based on Communist Party disciplinary rules and China’s administrative sanction law for public employees. [para. 7]
3. Accountability arises in two broad situations: intentional violations of judicial duties, and gross negligence causing serious consequences. [para. 8] Article 8 lists eight types of intentional misconduct, including clearly misapplying law or seriously violating procedures; concealing, fabricating, altering or destroying evidence; withholding key evidence or material facts when reporting to a collegial panel or adjudication committee; and issuing rulings without panel deliberation or against a committee decision. [para. 9] Serious violations of litigants’ procedural rights also trigger liability when intent exists. [para. 10] Article 9 lists eight types of gross negligence, such as major errors in fact-finding, legal application or evidence admission resulting in incorrect judgments; omitting key evidence or facts; failures causing errors in audits, appraisals, valuations or auctions with major losses; and unjustified delays beyond statutory deadlines. [para. 11]
4. To avoid deterring judges from ruling, the regulations exempt personnel when violations are minor and they qualify for leniency, such as voluntarily disclosing misconduct or taking effective action to avert losses. [para. 12] No responsibility is pursued if a procedural flaw does not affect a ruling’s correctness or validity and there was no intentional or grossly negligent breach. [para. 13] Even exempted cases can still draw reminders, criticism, written self-examination orders or formal admonitions. [para. 14] Judges are also protected when a ruling is later revised due to reasonable interpretive differences, factual changes from parties, newly discovered evidence, revised laws or policies, or objective constraints like technological limits. [para. 15] Supervisors with management duties are not liable if they followed rules and exercised necessary care, and support staff are exempt for errors from objective factors or force majeure if they acted carefully or remedied the issue. [para. 16]
5. Courts pursuing responsibility must weigh the nature, circumstances, fault and consequences of conduct, and may impose organizational measures, Party disciplinary penalties and administrative sanctions, either separately or together. [para. 17] Illustrative cases included a former basic-level court judge held accountable for delaying and falsely closing cases; a judge disciplined for ruling against an adjudication committee decision; and an appraisal-office director who improperly selected a valuation agency and failed statutory oversight. [para. 18] Misconduct leads include public complaints, legislative and political advisory reports, online opinion, higher-authority referrals, prosecutorial protests, judicial inspections, internal case-quality reviews and disciplinary reviews. [para. 19] Cases involving state-compensation liability, lowest case-quality ratings or major public controversy must be promptly referred to court inspection departments if violations are suspected. [para. 20] Ye Jian confirmed that public complaints and reports are important sources of leads, available through court inspection departments and the online People’s Courts Reporting Center for Discipline and Law Violations. [para. 21]
6. The regulations also protect judges from false accusations over lawful performance of duties. Courts must cooperate with relevant departments to clarify facts, eliminate adverse effects, and pursue legal liability against entities or individuals making false allegations. [para. 22]
AI generated, for reference only
Sign in with Google
Sign in with Facebook
Sign in with 财新