[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers]
滕彪文集
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
·关于审查和改变《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》部分不适当条款的建议
·胡佳的大爱与大勇
·后极权时代的公民美德与公民责任
·狱中致爱人
·奥运和乞丐不能并存?
·滕彪李苏滨关于青岛于建利涉嫌诽谤罪案的辩护意见
·纽约时报社评:中国的爱国小将们
·回网友四书
·我们都来关注滕彪博士/王天成
·暴力带不来和平,恐怖建不成和谐——就滕彪、李和平事件感言/王德邦
·让滕彪回家、追究国保撞车肇事的法律责任、还被监控公民自由/维权网
·刘晓波:黑暗权力的颠狂——有感于滕彪被绑架
·Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers
·Chinese lawyer missing after criticising human rights record
·Chinese Lawyer Says He Was Detained and Warned on Activism
·For Chinese activists, stakes are raised ahead of the Olympics
·To my wife, from jail/Teng Biao
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans in Court
·National Endowment for Democracy 2008 Democracy Awards
·获奖感言
·司法与民意——镜城突围
·Rewards and risks of a career in the legal system
·太离谱的现实感
·35个网评员对“这鸡蛋真难吃”的不同回答(转载加编辑加原创)
·Dissonance Strikes A Chord
·顺应历史潮流 实现律协直选——致全体北京律师、市司法局、市律协的呼吁
·但愿程序正义从杨佳案开始/滕彪 许志永
·维权的计算及其他
·我们对北京律协“严正声明”的回应
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(上)
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(下)
·Well-Known Human Rights Advocate Teng Biao Is Not Afraid
·法眼冷对三鹿门
·北京律师为自己维权风暴/亚洲周刊
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers


   Teng Biao
   Lawyer, Beijing Huayi Law Firm

   Lecturer, China University of Political Science and Law
   Originally published in Chinese by the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=206)
   
   The revised Law on Lawyers was passed at the 10th Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 28 October 2007. Despite some positive changes made in regard to lawyers’ consultation with criminal suspects and defendants, access to and photocopying of case files and documents, there has been no change at all regarding the independence of Lawyers’ Associations. The hope amongst academics and lawyers that new provisions in the Lawyers’ Law could be used to undo the malicious effects of Article 306 of the Criminal Law has also been dashed. Article 37 of the newly revised Law on Lawyers,, in particular, deserves attention. It says, ‘The personal rights of a lawyer in practicing law shall not be infringed upon. The representation or defense opinions presented in court by a lawyer shall not be subject to legal prosecution, however, except speeches compromising the national security, maliciously defaming others or seriously disrupting the court order.’; a trap for lawyers, in particular criminal lawyers.
   Lawyers’ legal immunity for statements made in court means that lawyers enjoy the right not to be held criminally or civilly liable for any oral or written statements concerning the submission or evaluation of evidence, or concerning defense statements or other statements made on behalf of litigants or defendants in court. Immunity of lawyers for statements made in court is common practice in all countries under the rule of law. For instance, an 1881 French law already stated that, ‘Lawyers shall not be subjected to charges of libel, defamation and contempt for verbal statements made or written documents submitted in court.’
   The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales says, ‘Oral statements made by lawyers appearing in court should be true and accurate. In general circumstances, lawyers enjoy exemption rights regarding the oral statements made before court.’ ‘Lawyers appearing in court should act with courtesy for the court.’
   Similarly, Section 1 of Article 452 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Luxemburg states that, ‘Oral or written statements made and submitted in court shall be exempted from all criminal charges if the statements in question were related to the litigation or the parties involved in the litigation.’
   In the case of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Hong Kong’s Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct passed in 1990 clearly states that lawyers appearing in court on behalf of clients are immune from legal responsibility toward third parties.
   Polish laws also protect the immunity of lawyers while carrying out their professional duties meaning that except for defamation of the judge or prosecutor, lawyers are cannot be charged with defamation.
   Similarly, the criminal procedures in Japan also provide for exemption from legal responsibility for lawyers appearing in court. Even in cases where there is insufficient evidence, the defense lawyer is exempted from legal liability.
   In the case of France, there are supplementary laws which allow the court to request the lawyers’ association to which a particular lawyer belongs to take disciplinary action against the lawyer for disrespectful conduct in court. The Netherlands has similar provisions which say, ‘in cases where lawyers express contempt for the court, or make fun of or insult clients or witnesses, in oral statements in court or by any other method, the presiding judge may issue a warning and criticize the lawyer. But the presiding judge is not allowed to discipline or punish lawyers because this power lies [exclusively] with the disciplinary committees of the lawyer’s associations.’
   Immunity of lawyers from liability for oral statements in court is also a right recognized by international conventions and treaties. In 1990, the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crimes and the Treatment of Offenders held in Havana, Cuba adopted the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Article 16 of the Principles requires that ‘(g)overnments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.’ And Article 20 of the Principles requires that ‘(l)awyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.’
   What is the point of such a system? Its point is related to the form and nature of litigation. Litigation requires that there be equality between the plaintiff and the defendant. The French philosopher Pierre Manent once said, ‘Equity must take precedence over justice. It is equity that creates and constitutes justice.’ The plaintiff and the defendant are equal subjects of the procedure in civil litigation cases. The relation is more complex in criminal cases; here the prosecution represents the state’s demand that criminal conduct be prosecuted, so naturally, the prosecution is in a more powerful position than the defense. In order to realise the principle of equity in this situation, to achieve an “equity of arms” and to ensure that both sides enjoy the same rights, neither side must attempt to exert any undue influence on the judge. The judge, on the other hand, must be impartial. He must give equally serious consideration to the arguments and statements of fact presented by both parties. Witnesses of the prosecution and defense must be able to provide testimony in the same conditions, they must have equal opportunities, and any bias is absolutely impermissible. The immunity of lawyers regarding oral statements made before the court is also an institutional arrangement that must not be disregarded.
   The lawyers’ immunity in respect of submissions made before the court is determined by the nature of the legal profession and its ethical standards. Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC stipulates, ‘The responsibility of a defender shall be to present, according to the facts and law, materials and opinions proving the innocence of the criminal suspect or defendant, the pettiness of his crime and the need for a mitigated punishment or exemption from criminal responsibility, thus safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of the criminal suspect or the defendant.’ Moreover, the Standards of Ethics and Disciplines of Professional Lawyers issued by the All China Lawyers’ Association state in Article 5 that, ‘lawyers shall abide to honesty, credibility, diligence and responsibility in fulfilling the requirement and responsibility of the profession for the defense of the legal interests of clients.’ In addition to that, Provision 24 requires that ‘lawyers shall fully exercise professional knowledge and skills, complete the entrusted tasks under legal parameters; and with commitment and responsibility, maximise protection of the legal interests of the clients.’
   In order to fulfill the duties set out above, lawyers must do their best to collect evidence favourable to their client and rebut the arguments and evidence presented by the other party in the course of the litigation process. In this process of gathering evidence, challenging the other side’s evidence and making a case for their client lawyers will inevitably come in conflict with the other side, and possibly even with the official ideology of the State. If a lawyer’s performance of his role can be regarded as giving rise to tortuous or criminal liability, this will have tremendously adverse effects on the legal profession

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场