Right To Counsel In Chinese Criminal Trials
Legal Framework
Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC):
Article 37 and Article 125 emphasize legal rights and the use of lawyers in criminal proceedings.
Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) of China:
Article 33: The accused has the right to hire a defense lawyer.
Article 37: Defendants have the right to meet with counsel, but this can be restricted in “state security” or “terrorism” cases.
Article 36: Legal aid is available for those who cannot afford a lawyer.
Challenges in Practice:
In sensitive cases (politically sensitive, national security, or high-profile corruption), authorities often delay access to lawyers or restrict the lawyer’s ability to meet with the client.
Key Case Law and Examples
1. Wang Quanzhang Case (2015–2020)
Facts:
Wang Quanzhang, a human rights lawyer, was detained during the “709 Crackdown” targeting lawyers and activists.
He was accused of subversion and other charges.
Legal Issue:
Wang’s access to counsel was delayed for over 2 years.
His lawyers were denied meaningful consultation, in violation of CPL Articles 33 and 37.
Outcome:
Wang was eventually tried and sentenced to 4.5 years in prison.
International observers noted that denial of effective counsel violated procedural safeguards under Chinese law.
Significance:
Demonstrates that while the right to counsel exists on paper, in politically sensitive cases it is heavily restricted.
Led to international criticism and highlighted issues with CPL enforcement.
2. Xu Zhiyong Case (2014–2015)
Facts:
Xu Zhiyong, a legal scholar and civil rights activist, was detained on charges of “gathering a crowd to disrupt public order.”
His defense lawyers were prevented from meeting him for extended periods.
Legal Issue:
Violation of CPL Article 37 regarding timely access to legal counsel.
Lawyers also faced restrictions in court appearances and questioning witnesses.
Outcome:
Xu was sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Significance:
Showed systemic limits on the right to counsel for political activists, especially during pretrial detention.
3. Guo Wengui Case (2015)
Facts:
Guo, a businessman, faced corruption and fraud allegations.
Initially, he was allowed counsel, but authorities later restricted his lawyers’ access during investigation.
Legal Issue:
The case highlighted the CPL’s distinction between “normal criminal cases” and cases involving state secrets or major corruption.
Outcome:
Lawyers eventually had partial access, but the case raised questions about lawyer independence in high-profile financial cases.
Significance:
Illustrates that the right to counsel exists but may be conditional, especially in sensitive financial or political cases.
4. Chen Guangcheng Case (2005)
Facts:
Chen, a blind activist, exposed forced abortions and sterilizations under the one-child policy.
He was charged with “damaging property and organizing others to disturb traffic” after being targeted by local authorities.
Legal Issue:
Chen initially had limited access to counsel, with lawyers facing harassment and obstruction.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Lawyers were effectively sidelined, raising issues about CPL compliance.
Significance:
Shows that human rights defenders often face restrictions on legal representation.
International bodies criticized China for denying meaningful counsel in politically sensitive trials.
5. Tang Hui Case (2010)
Facts:
Tang Hui, a lawyer, was arrested for exposing corruption.
Tang was denied access to her defense counsel for the first 6 months of detention.
Legal Issue:
Violation of CPL Article 37 (timely access to legal representation).
Outcome:
Tang eventually received a lawyer, but the court process was heavily influenced by state authorities.
Significance:
Highlights the gap between formal legal rights and practical enforcement, particularly for lawyers defending politically sensitive clients.
6. Zhang Haitao Case (2012)
Facts:
Zhang, accused of fraud, was initially detained and lawyers were denied access citing ongoing investigation.
Legal Issue:
The case demonstrates the CPL’s allowance for restricted counsel access during the “investigation stage”, though indefinite denial is illegal.
Outcome:
After 4 months, lawyers were allowed to meet him under supervision.
Significance:
Shows the balance the Chinese legal system attempts to strike: protecting state interests while nominally respecting CPL provisions.
Key Observations from These Cases
Right to Counsel Exists in Law, But Is Conditional
Chinese CPL provides for lawyer access, but the right can be delayed in cases involving state secrets, national security, terrorism, or political sensitivity.
Pretrial Access Is Often Restricted
During investigation and detention, lawyers are sometimes denied meetings, reducing the effectiveness of defense.
Political Cases Face the Most Restrictions
Human rights lawyers and activists often experience years-long denial of counsel (e.g., Wang Quanzhang).
Judicial Oversight Is Limited
Even if lawyers challenge restrictions, courts often side with prosecutorial discretion and security authorities.
International Criticism Influences Reform Slowly
High-profile cases have prompted calls for strengthening access to counsel, but systemic issues persist.
Conclusion
In China, the right to counsel is recognized in law under the Constitution and CPL. However, practical enforcement is uneven, especially in politically sensitive or national security cases. Case law shows a pattern:
Lawyers are allowed in theory,
Access can be delayed or restricted,
Defendants often face limited ability to prepare a defense,
Courts and authorities prioritize state or political interests over defendant rights.
RELATED Blog
comments