[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
·日常行动背后的法律社会学基础
·真相是如何可能的?
·听 来 的 故 事
·禁讨立法需要多少个理由?
·敢 问 路 在 何 方—评福建、河北等地农民罢免人大代表案
·杀人,以整顿市容的名义
·绕不过去的违宪审查
·清明节,我去了天安门广场
·立场主义与道德主义(网络版)
·饥饿的中国—写在冯彦伟绝食抗议榆林市政府野蛮暴行的第48小时
·大学生社团的使命
·激 活 宪 法
·孙志刚事件:知识、媒介与权力
·司法的归司法,舆论的归舆论?—从张金柱案到黄静案
·谁能阻止一个人心底的眼泪—日记16则,纪念父亲
·生活是维权运动的源头活水
·虚构的故事
·体制的边界
临沂计划生育调查手记
·蒙河边的抗争—临沂计划生育调查手记之一
·“我家亲戚被抓了22口”—临沂计划生育调查手记之二
·她的眼里没有泪水—临沂计划生育调查手记之三
·到办公室上课去!—临沂计划生育调查手记之四
·不扎也得扎!—临沂计划生育调查手记之五
·学习班—临沂计划生育调查手记之六
·向人性宣战—临沂计划生育调查手记之七
·“盯关跟主义”—临沂计划生育调查手记之八
·人性不曾屈服—临沂计划生育调查手记之九
·野蛮是如何炼成的?—临沂计划生育调查手记之十
·后记:
·有谁战胜过真相
·法治中国需要中国法律人的良知及责任—致世界法律大会中国代表的公开信
·从上书到公开信
·是谁在“严重威胁社会秩序”?—关于游行示威权利的行政复议申请书
·致陈光诚的一封信
·用微笑来面对那些制造恐惧的人——和高智晟在一起的一个下午
·2+2=4的自由
·推倒「新闻柏林围墙」——透视中国新闻自由的前景
·恢复收容遣送制度等于开历史倒车
·陈光诚案凸显中国法治的困局
·暗夜里的光明之舞
·中国维权运动往何处去?
·陈光诚是如何被定罪的?(补充版)
·Crusader in a legal wilderness
·China’s blind Justice
·China's Political Courts
·以公民的姿态挺身而出/闵家桥
·“最可贵的是她有健康的公民意识”——关于公民王淑荣的对话
·“阳光宪政”的护卫者/民主与法制杂志
·要让好人走到一起,才能合力纠错——奥美定事件亲历者访谈录/南方周末
·李卫平: 被迫走出书斋的维权者——著名维权律师滕彪访谈录
·太阳城:写在第三期“名家说法”被命令取消之后
·滕彪印象/法制日报
·Rule of Law requires our consciousness and responsibility
·临沂野蛮计生与陈光诚事件维权大事记(2006-11-7)
·耻为盛世添顺骨
·中国时报专访:盼与政府互动 和平维权
·滕彪博士:精神家园的守望者/刘爽
·司法改良和公民维权——学而思沙龙的网谈
·学术、政治与生活——2006年12月17日做客沧海论坛在线交流记录
·黎明前的见证
·看看我们的朋友——致受难中的高智晟和他的妻子和孩子
·临沂警匪暴行录
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(五——七)
·中国当代宪政主义者的困境和选择/林泽波
·通过汉语改变中国
·茶人滕彪/萧瀚
·崔英杰案:“慎杀时代”的第一个考验
·死刑、司法与中国人权
·废除死刑的中国语境——在第三届世界反死刑大会上的发言
·司法独立,和谐中国——2007年“两会”之际的公民呼吁/许志永 滕彪
·彻底改革司法才能避免滥用死刑
·崔英杰案,在多重反思中寻找契机
·从“两会”看赎回选票运动
·关于尽快将青岛市四方区政府违法拆迁行为纳入法制轨道的法律意见书
·青岛野蛮拆迁:袁薪玉被控放火和妨害公务案一审的当庭辩护意见
·维权书简·戴脚镣的舞者
·被遗忘的谎言——就《成都晚报》事件致中宣部长和教育部长的一封信
·滕彪:可怕的“冤案递增律”
·不是我不明白
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
[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