China’s draft court law

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 8.40.56 PM

Screenshot of trial in the Haidian district court

A draft of the first comprehensive overhaul of China’s court law since 1979 (the organic/organizational law of the people’s courts) is now open for public comment (until 4 October).  A translation of the draft is available at Chinalawtranslate.com (many thanks to those who made it possible).  A translation of the current law is here and an explanation of the amendments has also been published.  The draft is significantly longer than the earlier version of the law (66 vs. 40 articles). It retains much of the framework of the old law, incorporates legislative changes as well many of the judicial reforms, particularly since the Third and Fourth Plenums, and leaves some flexibility for future reforms. As with the current law, Communist Party regulations address (and add another layer to) some of the broad issues addressed in the draft law. Some comments:

Drafting process

The drafting process (the explanation has the details) reflects the drafting of much Chinese legislation (further insights about the process from Jamie Horsley here)–several years of soft consultation by the drafters of relevant Party and government authorities, plus one month of public consultations. Among the central Party authorities consulted were: Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, Central Organizational Department (in charge of cadres); Central Staffing Commission (in charge of headcount); Central Political Legal Committee.  On the government side: Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate; State Council Legislative Affairs Office; Ministry of Finance, National People’s Congress Legal Work Committee. Investigations and consultations were also done at a local level.

General Provisions

Some of the dated language from the 1979 version has been deleted (references to the “system of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” “socialist property,” and the “smooth progress of the socialist revolution.” replaced by “lawful rights and interests of legal persons,” and protection of national security and social order. Although the draft court law deletes language that distinguishes among owners of different types of Chinese companies, Chinese criminal law still does (see this chart setting out sentencing guidelines, for example).

Article 10 of the draft incorporates judicial responsibility systems into the law (a prominent feature of the recent judicial reforms), but a topic regarding which dispassionate analysis is hard to find.

The draft contains clear statements about judicial openness and the right of the masses (i.e. ordinary people, that term is alive and well) to know about the work of the courts (according to law).

Organization of the courts

The draft mentions some of the specialized and special courts that have been established over the last thirty years:

Article 14 incorporates the guiding case system into the draft.

Article 15 of the draft crystallizes the SPC’s circuit courts (tribunals) into law (SPC regulations on the jurisdiction of those courts found here).

Article 24 gives space for establishing cross-administrative region courts (the time has not yet been ripe for establishing them).

Articles 26 and 27 give courts some flexibility on their internal structure (courts in remote areas with few cases need not establish divisions, while large city courts can have multiple specialized ones. (Earlier blogposts have mentioned establishing bankruptcy divisions, for example.)

Trial Organization

This section of the draft law incorporates the current judicial reforms in several ways, including:

  • In Articles 30-31, on the operation of collegial panels and requiring the court president to be the presiding judge when s(he) participates in a collegial panel;
  • Mentioning in Article 32 that the members of the collegial panel are the ones to sign their judgments and dissenting opinions are to be recorded;
  • Article 34 gives space for eliminating the role of people’s assessors to determine issues of law;
  • Article 37 incorporates into law previous SPC regulations on judicial interpretations and guiding cases, specifying that they must be approved by the SPC judicial committee;
  • Article 40 contains provisions imposing liability on members of the adjudication/judicial committee for their comments and their votes. It also incorporates into the law SPC regulations on disclosing the views of the judicial committee in the final judgments, except where the law provides it would be inappropriate;
  • Article 41 also incorporates into the law the specialized committees mentioned in judicial reform documents (briefly discussed in prior blogposts).

Court Personnel

Article 42 requires court presidents to have legal knowledge and experience.  It has long been an issue that court presidents have been appointed more for their political than legal expertise.

It appears that the reform of having judges below the provincial level appointed by the provincial level is not yet in place,

This section of the draft court law incorporates the personnel reforms set out in the judicial reform documents in several ways: quota judge system; selecting higher court judges from the lower courts; the roles of judicial assistants and clerks (changed from the old model); other support personnel in the courts; a new career track for judges, including judicial selection committees; preference to hiring judges with legal qualifications;

Safeguards for the courts’ exercise of authority

Article 56 gives courts the right to refuse to engage in activities that violate their legally prescribed duties (with this end the phenomenon of judges sweeping streets?);

Article 57 relates to reforms relating to enforcement of judgments (and the social credit system);

Article 59 relates to threats to judges’ physical safety and personal dignity, that occur several times a year in China, and have been the subject of SPC regulations;

Scope for further reforms for judicial personnel management (including salary reform!) are included in this section.

Article 60 reiterates the principle that judges may only be transferred, demoted, dismissed according to procedures specified by law (Party procedures  to which most judges are subject,are governed by Party rules.)

Article 62 relates to judicial (and judicial personnel training)–some earlier blogposts have shed light on this topic.

Article 64 incorporates into the draft law President Zhou Qiang’s focus on the informatization (including use of the internet and big data) of the Chinese courts.

Etc.

My apologies to readers for the long gap between posts, but several long haul trips from Hong Kong plus teaching have left me no time to post.

Advertisements

Supreme People’s Court ramps up its judicial responsibility system

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 7.04.09 AMIn April of this year (2017), the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its judicial responsibility guidelines.  At the end of July, the SPC issued a 73 article implementing opinion (最高人民法院司法责任制实施意见(试行)(Implementing Opinion), which went into effect on 1 August.  There have been many summary reports in the legal press, but the full text was not found until 11 August. It has since been published by several Wechat accounts, but as of this writing, no official text has been issued.  The policy basis for the responsibility system links back to the 3rd and 4th Plenum Decisions. Senior Party leadership (the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms) approved the SPC’s responsibility system.

The document establishes operating rules for the SPC  after this latest round of court reforms, and therefore sets guidelines for the lower courts. It can be expected that the lower courts will issue corresponding documents. Through the Implementing Opinion, it is possible to see how much autonomy an individual judge/three judge panel has and what matters require approval by senior SPC leaders.

Opinions (as this blog has previously explained) are not judicial interpretations but a type of judicial normative document.   A recent Wechat post by an SPC commercial subsidiary, Faxin (法信), described them as judicial guiding documents (司法指导性文件). That is the terminology being used for them in a series of books published by the People’s Court Press. Inconsistent legal terminology is not a new phenomenon.

The basic principles of the Implementing Opinion are said to implement central authorities’ requirements, let those who hear cases bear responsibility, clarify how cases are to be dealt with and put in place the Party group’s responsibility for enforcement (the phrase “Party group” actually is mentioned three times) and case handling. It appears that some provisions memorialize current practice, while others set out new rules.

The  Implementing Opinion specifies roles of different personnel and institutions within the SPC such as the court president (and vice presidents), heads of divisions, professional judges committee, judicial committee, presiding judges, judges in charge of cases, clerks, and judicial assistants. It provides guidelines on how cases are to dealt with, from case acceptance, random case assignment, to issuing decisions.

The Implementing Opinion includes the following (selected) provisions:

  • Details on staffing for judges (one assistant and one clerk in the circuit courts, and some assistants and clerks at headquarters) (Article 3);
  • those with a leadership role (President/vice president/vice/heads of divisions) should generally be the presiding judge (Article 5), while the judges in collegial panels should change every 2-5 years;
  • leaders need to hear cases, that are difficult/important/guiding, etc., but specialists are designated to assist them (Article 7);
  • rules on who will issue judgments, mentioning that the president of the SPC signs the  order for the implementation of the death penalty (this was understood to be the case already)(Article 11);
  • court leaders may not give oral/written instructions concerning a case (except as otherwise provided (i.e. cases that are considered by the judicial committee)(Article 12);
  • responsibilities of professional judges committees (a committee put into place under the judicial reforms); judicial committee (can be split into specialist civil, criminal, enforcement subcommittees) (role said to have narrowed, but include major/difficult cases affecting national interests & social stability, but also other non-case related duties such as approving judicial interpretations/judicial normative documents, etc., the judicial committees requires  views be stated in the judgment (Articles 16-19);
  • the basic rule is random case assignment, with exceptions for major/difficult cases (Article 26-27), with electronic service of process & documents if agreed (Article 32);
  • basic rule is online broadcast of SPC court hearings, unless approved by leaders otherwise (Article 33), with requirements concerning the posting of rulings/judgments and other transparency requirements mentioned in the document;
  • circuit courts are prohibited (in general) from considering requests for instructions (the rule makes sense–it would defeat one of the purposes of having circuit courts (Article 25, this is an example);
  •  Articles 41-43 relate to precedent case review (as suggested in my recent article) and require approval by leaders if the ruling in a case will be inconsistent with prior SPC rulings on the topic (this has been criticized as being inconsistent with judicial autonomy). Approval is required in several other situations, see Article 40 (2-4));
  • Articles 46-50 set forth rules for a collegiate panel to consider a case and submit it to the division leadership/professional judges committee/judicial committee;
  • Article 51 requires the judge responsible for the case (承办法官) to draft the decision reached according to the majority view, indicating that the role of responsible judge has administrative overtones. If not so, the judgment would be drafted by one of the judges who agreed with the majority view.
  • Article 58 retains existing special procedures (including special standards for transparency) for certain criminal cases, such as death penalty cases, cases involving foreigners, overseas Chinese, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwanese Chinese.
  • Article 61 provides the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) representative stationed at the SPC can be a member of the judicial committee (this seems to be analogous to the procedure under law under which a representative from the procuratorate can take part in judicial committee meetings). Additionally, anti-corruption officials stationed in each division can participate in professional judges committee meetings and collegiate panel discussions.   Article 61 does not require their views to be adopted.  It could be that their views are considered more seriously if discussions relate to matters regarding which they are competent.
  • Article 64 requires certain types of cases to be submitted for approval to higher levels of the SPC, including cases involving mass incidents, that will have an effect on social stability; difficult and complicated cases that will have a major effect on society; cases that will conflict with prior SPC cases; those that indicate the judge violated the law; death penalty review, major criminal cases, cases involving requests for instructions involving foreigners, overseas Chinese, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwanese Chinese.

The vision for the reformed SPC remains a court with administrative characteristics (官本位), with concepts derived from other jurisdictions (judge’s assistant would be an example), that enables Party guidance in sensitive cases and its operations to reflect changes in Party/government policy (serving the actual situation), but seeks to be a more professional and accessible institution, hearing cases in a professional manner. It can be surmised that certain provisions from the Implementing Opinion will be incorporated into the revisions of the Organizational Law of the People’s Courts currently being drafted.

 

 

Law-related Wechat public accounts (2017 version) (1)

logoI’ve posted several times about law-related Wechat (微信) public accounts.  They are an important resource for those trying to understand Chinese legal developments (or their absence) and their implications or impact. For the observer, it enables us to learn about new issues (or aspects of issues) that we didn’t know existed, and (depending on the topic), hear viewpoints other than the official one, or at least read hints of dissenting views. Those with the Wechat app on their smartphone can subscribe to these public accounts but it is also possible to find some these articles through an internet search.  Note that the “Mr. Yong” about whom I wrote in 2016 still lurks on Wechat, so articles published may disappear.

Below is an incomplete guide to some useful law-related Wechat public accounts–oriented to my own interests, to be followed up when time permits.  Please contact me through the comment function or by email with additional suggestions.

Official accounts

As I’ve written before Party/government authorities use Wechat public accounts to reach out to a public that is moving away from traditional media to their smartphones. SPC policy is encouraging courts to do so.  There is some but not complete overlap between articles that appear on an institution’s website and Wechat account. There is complete overlap when more political matters are involved. Even some articles published on institutional public accounts have a “netizen” tone and popular netizen slang and images, such as this one from the Qianhai Court public account.

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 9.13.10 AM

You’re right, today the little editor wants to tell everyone A BIG! THING! about the Qianhai Court!

Some large institutions (Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP)), have affiliated research, publishing and educational institutions, with each having a Wechat public accounts under its auspices. There is some overlap in articles, but others are unique to the Wechat account.

The SPC has its official account: Wechat ID: ch_zgrmfy; People’s Court Daily: Wechat ID: renminfayuanbao; SPC’s research institute, The Institute for Applied Jurisprudence, Wechat ID: fayansuo; National Judicial College’s Wechat ID:falvshiyongzazhi (Wechat version of their magazine, Application of Law (法律适用) & account of its case research institute (司法案例研究院), Wechat ID: sifalyjy.  There is also an account on diversified dispute resolution, linked to the Institute for Applied Jurisprudence: 多元化纠纷解决机制 (SIFAADR). The electronic database Faxin (法信) affiliated with People’s Court Press (which itself has a Wechat account: fayuanchubanshe) also has a Wechat account, Legal_information, as do the journals 中国审判  (Id: zhongguoshenpan) and人民司法 (renminsifa). (This list is incomplete).

Officially approved accounts but not official

Some individuals affiliated with legal institutions have Wechat public accounts (presumably with the approval of their institutional leaders), among them: account of a Pudong New area judge, 法眼观察 (fygc20140416)–here is a recent article on the large number of cases in his and 19 other local courts; 法影斑斓 , account of He Fan, judge in the judicial reform office of the SPC, Wechat ID: funnylaw1978; CU检说法 (CU-JIAN), account of a local prosecutor (see an article on prosecutor’s assistants) 稻花蛙声(paddyfrog), recent article on judicial reform as seen from the bottom of the judicial food chain;法治昌明 (fazhichaming), with a recent article on the toxic system of performance appraisals.

Supervision Commission

The two must read accounts for those trying to understand what is happening with the supervision commission pilots:监察委前沿 (jianchaweiqy)and反腐先锋 (recent article on the framework for the supervision commissions published here)

Others, many previously recommended

  • Arbitration:  Wechat ID: cnarb1, account of Lin Yifei, mentioned in an earlier blogpost.  I highly recommend it to both practitioners and others interested in arbitration.
  • Labor law:Wechat ID: laodongfaku (劳动法库) (with over 200,000 followers; Wechat ID: ldfview (子非鱼说劳动法);
  • Civil law 海坛特哥 (haitanlegal), account of Chen Te, formerly of the Beijing Higher People’s Court, now a lawyer (高衫legal) [his earlier posts focused on medical law], Wechat ID: gaoshanlegal;  审判研究, Wechat ID: spyjweixin; 法客帝国, Wechat ID: Empirelawyers; 审判研究, Wechat ID: msspck.
  • Criminal law: 辩护人Defender (bianhuren_net); 辩护园地 (zrflawyer); 刑事实务, Wechat ID: xingshishiwu; 刑事审判参考 Wechat ID: criminailaw;说刑品案 (xingshishenpan)
  • International law: Wechat ID: ciil 2015 国际法促进中心
  • IP law–知产力 (zhichanli); 知识产权那点事, Wechat ID: IPR888888.
  • Aggregators–智和法律新媒体, Wechat ID: zhihedongfang; 法律博客, Wechat ID: falvboke,  法律读品, Wechat ID: lawread.

 

 

Forthcoming individual bankruptcy legislation revealed in letter to President Zhou Qiang’s mailbox

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 12.48.54 PMMost readers of this blog are unlikely to know that the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) publishes on its website responses to selected letters to President Zhou Qiang that make suggestions and give opinions. In a July 11 response, the SPC revealed that individual bankruptcy legislation is on its agenda. As I suggest below, actual legislation is likely to come later.

The letter said:

Dear Mr. Pan Dingxin:

We received your proposal, and after consideration, we respond as follows:

establishing and implementing an individual bankruptcy system is beneficial for those individuals or households who have fallen into serious financial distress to exempt some of their debts and enable them again through their hard work to achieve normal business and living conditions. Because of this, it has an important function to protect individuals and households that have fallen into financial difficulties. However an individual bankruptcy system relates to the establishment and improvement of an individual credit system and commercialization of commercial banks or their further marketization and other factors.  At the same time, the implementation of an individual bankruptcy system requires the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee to legislate. We believe that with development and improvement of the socialist market economic, the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee will promulgate an individual bankruptcy law on the basis of the experience with the “PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.” The Supreme People’s Court will definitely actively support the work of the relevant departments of the state, and promote the implementation of an individual bankruptcy system.

Thank you for your support of the work of the Supreme People’s Court!

Supreme People’s Court

June 15, 2017

Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 9.37.15 PM Few are aware that Shenzhen has been working on draft individual bankruptcy legislation for several years now, looking to Hong Kong’s experience and legislation, described in a recent report as a “complete” individual bankruptcy system (“完善的个人破产制度”).  The process has been going on for so long that the team (designated by the local people’s congress and lawyers association) and headed by a Shenzhen law firm partner published a book one year ago with its proposed draft and explanations.

Although Professor Tian Feilong of Beihang University’s Law School has been recently widely quoted for his statement about Hong Kong’s legal system undergoing “nationalisation,”  this is an example, known to those closer to the the world of practice, that Hong Kong’s legal system is also seen as a source of legal concepts and systems that can possibly be borrowed.  The drafting team looked at Hong Kong (among other jurisdictions) and others in China have proposed the same as well.

Shenzhen’s municipal intermediate court has completed an (award-winning) study on judicial aspects of individual bankruptcy shared with the relevant judges at the SPC.

If recent practice is any guide, individual bankruptcy legislation will be piloted in Shenzhen and other regions before  nationwide legislation is proposed, and it will be possible to observe the possible interaction between those rules and the government’s social credit system. So national individual bankruptcy legislation appears to be some years off.

As to why the SPC has a letter to the court president function, the answer is on the SPC website: it is to further develop the mass education and practice campaign (mentioned in this blogpost four years ago) and listen to the opinions and suggestions of all parts of society (the masses).  Listening to the opinion and suggestions of society are also required of him as a senior Party leader, by recently updated regulations. The regulations are the latest expression of long-standing Party principles.

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 12.48.33 PM

Welcome to the “Court President’s Mailbox”

 

 

Chinese courts & formality requirements

apostille

Hong Kong Apostille (from internet)

In February, 2017, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its second judicial transparency white paper, giving the official version of what the SPC has done to respond to public demands for greater transparency about the Chinese judicial system. But what are the voices from the world of practice saying? One of the issues (for a small but vocal group, foreign litigants) is inconsistent and non-transparent formalities requirements.

Chinese civil procedure legislation requires a foreign litigant to notarize and legalize corporate documents, powers of attorney & other documents. It is a time consuming and costly process, with some jurisdictions providing documents that do not meet the expectation of Chinese courts.   China is not yet a signatory to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents  (Hague Legalization Convention)   which substitutes the faster and cheaper apostille process (note that Hague Legalization Convention continues to be applicable to Hong Kong and Macau under the terms of the joint declarations and Basic Laws for each Special Administrative Region (SAR)).  About one year ago, a Ministry of Justice official published a Wechat article discussing the benefits of the Hague Legalization Convention (as well as the issues facing China in implementing it).

While this article addresses issues faced by foreign plaintiffs seeking to challenge Trademark Review and Adjudication Board decisions in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (Beijing IP Court), according to other practitioners (who have asked not to be identified), these problems with inconsistent (and non-transparent) requirements concerning legalizing foreign corporate documentation are not limited to the Beijing IP Court, but face foreign parties appealing from intermediate courts to provincial high courts elsewhere in China. These requirements can have the effect of cutting off a party’s ability to bring an appeal, for example.

What is the solution?  The long-term solution, of course, is for China to become a signatory to the Hague Legalization Convention.  In the meantime, Chinese courts should be more transparent about their formalities requirements.  These requirements affect all foreign parties, whether they are from One Belt, One Road  (OBOR) countries or not. If China is seeking to become an international maritime judicial center or hear more OBOR commercial cases, the Chinese courts need to become more user friendly.  Courts with significant numbers of foreign cases (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen….) can consider reaching out to the foreign chambers of commerce, many of which have legal committees, to understand in greater detail what specific problems foreign litigants face (and convey their views to foreign audiences). Resolving this issue can create some goodwill with the foreign business community with relatively little effort.

 

China’s Evolving Case Law System In Practice

1200px-Tsinghua_University_Logo.svgI recently published an article in the Tsinghua China Law Review on Chinese case law in practice, building on several blogposts I had previously written and articles by fellow bloggers Jeremy Daum and Mark Cohen.  Many thanks are due to the persons who shared their experience and observations with me. A special thank you is due to the persons who provided detailed comments on earlier drafts.

Judicial assistance between the mainland & Hong Kong at 20

Screen Shot 2017-07-02 at 4.08.03 PM

HK’s Secretary of Justice shaking hands with SPC Justice Shen Deyong

In all legal arrangements, the devil is in the details.  Important details concerning how the Hong Kong and mainland legal systems interact are found in a series of arrangements on mutual legal assistance between mainland China and Hong Kong.  An “arrangement,” for those not familiar with Hong Kong/mainland legal jargon, is a quasi-treaty document between Hong Kong and the mainland. The mainland is looking to conclude further arrangements, including in the area of criminal law.  According to 29 June report by Xinhua News:

Chinese mainland and Hong Kong are expected to confirm further judicial assistance arrangements, including those regarding criminal proceedings.

Shen [Deyong, Supreme People’s Court (SPC) executive vice president] said in an interview with Xinhua that the two sides will carry out further negotiations on judicial assistance in civil and commercial cases and will take effective measures to deal with the assistance issues in criminal cases, so the assistance arrangements cover all judicial realms between the two sides.

It appears that Justice Shen is repeating what he told Hong Kong’s Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen in April, 2017.

Justice Shen’s language can be traced back to the 4th Plenum Decision:

Strengthen law enforcement and judicial cooperation between the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan,jointly attack crossborder unlawful and criminal activities.

(I discussed this in a January, 2015 conference at the University of Hong Kong.)

Likely taking the lead in negotiating these arrangements is the Hong Kong Department of Justice (Hong Kong DOJ)’s International Law Division (and I assume others as well) and its mainland interlocutors.  I assume that a team from the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs office is among the negotiators on the other side of the table (with a team from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate involved with negotiations on criminal matters.  The Hong Kong DOJ’s website lists five mutual legal assistance arrangements, with the most recent one, signed on 20 June 2017, on the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments in Matrimonial and Family Cases, not yet in force.  The paper that the Hong Kong DOJ filed with the Legislative Council sets out details of the arrangement, including its scope.

This latest arrangement relates to one of many pressing practical legal issues between Hong Kong and the mainland, the large percentage of “cross-boundary marriages.” According to the Hong Kong DOJ’s consultation paper on the arrangement (the SPC did not issue a similar paper), cross-boundary marriages increased from 32% to 37% during 2009-2014 and 20-30% of divorce cases filed in Hong Kong’s family court during 2010-14 related to marriages that took place on the mainland.

This arrangement involved creative lawyering on both sides, because it involves incorporating principles from several Hague Convention to which mainland China is not a party:

  • Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations (1970), applicable to Hong Kong, but not the mainland;
  • The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), applicable to Hong Kong, but not the mainland;
  • International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007), not applicable to either Hong Kong or the mainland.

Many of the previous arrangements reflected Hague Conventions to which the mainland was already a party.

Commercial lawyers should note that according to an April, 2017 statement by Hong Kong’s Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen, it was agreed in the form of 2016 meeting minutes to prioritize an arrangement for reciprocal judgment enforcement in civil and commercial matters involving situations other than the presence of choice of court agreements.  A consultation paper has not yet been issued for that arrangement. I surmise that the arrangement will reflect the draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.  Hong Kong’s DOJ has at least one representative participating in China’s delegation.  Several senior SPC judges are also on the delegation. (The other two arrangements mentioned have already been concluded.)  It can be seen from this visual from a Chinese court’s Wechat public account, that the end of 2017 has been set as the deadline for concluding that arrangement.

Arrangements involving criminal matters are much more difficult to conclude, although several prominent commentators in Hong Kong this year have called for a rendition arrangement to be concluded. Among those include Grenville Cross, former director of public prosecutions in Hong Kong and Regina Ip, former Secretary for Security.  The issues have been discussed since the late 1990’s.  This 2005 paper submitted to the Legislative Council sets out some of the basic principles that could go into a future rendition arrangements:

  • double criminality;
  • issue of death penalty;
  • non-extradition for political offenses;
  • fair trial;
  • double jeopardy;
  • habeus corpus.

There have been academic articles on many of these topics.

It appears that the increased pressure on Hong Kong relating to the rendition arrangement is related to the drafting by the mainland’s Ministry of Justice of an International Criminal Justice Assistance Law.  (No drafts have yet been released.) Fellow blogger NPC Observer notes that although the law is intended as a comprehensive statute covering all areas of international criminal justice assistance, including the mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal judgments, official discourse labels it an anti-corruption law, likely designed specifically to hunt fugitive corrupt officials overseas.  So it appears also to be linked to Operation Skynet and the Central Anti-Corruption Coordination Group.

The status of negotiations on a rendition arrangement or other arrangements related to criminal justice are unknown.  What is known is that there have been instances, including earlier this year, in which certain mainland authorities have dispensed with the niceties of official liaison. Would having an arrangement improve matters, as Grenville Cross argues, or will “extraordinary” rendition continue to occur?

It appears that upholding an important part of Hong Kong’s rule of law, as evidenced by arrangements between Hong Kong and the mainland depends on the professionalism of Rimsky Yuen, the Secretary of Justice, his Department of Justice colleagues and their mainland interlocutors.  As he told Justice Shen and others at a meeting between the SPC and Department of Justice in April, 2017:

Cooperation [on criminal cases] is significant, but considering the difference of the two legal systems, we face challenges in civil, commercial and criminal ­cooperation. It will still take some time.

Finally, paraphrasing the Guardian, analyzing the Supreme People’s Court takes time and costs money. If you like the Monitor, please make a contribution (details here.)