[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
·“访民困境与出路”研讨会
·美国CECC中国人权听证会:中共必须被公开羞辱
·Key Moments from CECC hearing “Gagging the Lawyers”
·Gagging the Lawyers: China’s Crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers and It
·多个人权组织及欧盟呼吁取消对刘晓波的限制/VOA
·709律师节与中国人权现况
·中国人权律师节启动 在笑与泪中纪念“709”两周年
·Chinese human rights lawyers remain defiant despite crackdown
·滕彪/夏业良漫谈法律与维权进程
· 萬人簽署08憲章,為什麼唯獨重判劉曉波
·709抓捕兩週年 律師籲持續國際施壓
·挽劉曉波聯
·The Political Meaning of the Crime of “Subverting State Power”
·滕彪/夏业良:公共知识分子和自由主义
·中国民主前路研讨会/RFA
·中国流亡律师滕彪,要做黑暗中的闪电
·Selected Publications/presentations as of 2017/8
·The Costs and Risks of Fighting for Human Dignity and Freedom
·China faces split into seven parts
· A Call for Investigation Into HNA Group’s Activities in the US and L
·王全璋律师竞逐郁金香人权奖:无畏强权 勇气与付出
·〝维稳〞维到联合国?人权观察批中共
·City of Asylum -Interview
·对中共的绥靖政策已致恶果浮现
·China’s top human rights lawyer in exile to speak at Saint Michael’s
·Activist expats raise voices on China rights crackdown
·A Human Rights Lawyer Lifts the Communist Party’s Spell
·Returning to Revolution
·One-man rule? China's Xi Jinping consolidates grip on power
·劉曉波對維權律師的關注
·滕彪:中国自由民权运动与习近平时代
·Kidnap, torture, exile: Dr. Teng Biao shares his story
·維權、佔中與公民抗命
·Arrested, Assaulted and Tortured: Exiled Human Rights Lawyer Details P
·滕彪律师评论郭文贵事件的意义
·Coercive Family Planning in Linyi
·Chinese lawyers hailed as “heroes for justice”
·THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF THE DISAPPEARED
·《失踪人民共和国》
·EXEMPLARY FIGURES REPORTED BY GARIWO
·在劫难逃
·李明哲案 滕彪:陸意圖影響台灣政治籌碼
·人权律师解密北京的"水晶之夜"
·李明哲案:臺灣退無可退
·作为人类精神事件的刘晓波之死
·北京驱逐"低端"人口的制度根源
·Atrocity in the Name of the Law
·学者解析中共执政密码
·暴行,以法律的名义
·人道中国十周年纪录短片
·“中华维权律师协会”评出十佳维权律师
·中国妇权成立十周年纪念
·武统狂言背后的恐懼
·以法律名義被消失,中華失踪人民共和國
·川普公布首批人权恶棍 滕彪:震慑中共
·「蚂蚁金服」在美并购遭拒 中国官媒指不排除反制措施
·CCP is taking China towards more and more Owellian state
·中国公民社会前景:乐观还是堪忧?
·中共渗透遭美欧澳等国谴责 专家析世界格局
·Laogai, le goulag chinois
·不反思計劃生育 中國就沒有未來
·中国:溃败与希望
·Conversation on China’s human right
·Draconic Restrictions on Uyghur Cultural And Religious Freedoms
·寧添十座墳,不添一個人
· the only way seems to become more dictatorial and oppressiv
·不管藍營綠營,面對的都是「集中營
·惠台政策还是经济统战?
·专访:用李明哲案件恐吓整个台湾
·習近平進一步向毛澤
·中共專制政權威脅全世界
·新戊戌变法的变与不变
·【Documentary】China: Spies, Lies and Blackmail
·No escape: The fearful life of China's exiled dissidents
·中国异议人士逃抵西方仍难脱离中共监控威胁
·The State of Human Rights Lawyers in China
·权益组织:电视认罪—一场中国官方导演的大戏
·温良学者 正义卫士(一)
·Has Xi Jinping Changed China? Not Really
·訪滕彪律師談中共政權對於全世界民主自由人權發展的負面影響
·中共绑架中国
·美国务院发布人权报告 点名批评中国等八国
·滕彪,温良学者 正义卫士(二)——发出不同的声音
·鸿茅药酒:中共制度之毒
·on televised confessions
·滕彪,温良学者 正义卫士(三)——挑战恶法 虽败犹荣
·温良学者 正义卫士(四)——铁骨也柔情
·温良学者 正义卫士(五)——黑暗中的闪电
·美两党议员推法案 要求调查中共渗透/NTD
·Video【Teng Biao: From 1989 to 1984】
·第二届藏港台圆桌会 中国律师表态支持自决权
·自由民主與自決權:第二屆藏港台圓桌會議
·Exiled in the U.S., a Lawyer Warns of ‘China’s Long Arm’
·端传媒滕彪专访:一个曾经的依法维权者,怎么看今日中国?
·VOA:川金会上 人权问题真的被忽略了吗?
·“中国的长臂”:滕彪审视西方机构对华自我审查
·中国长臂迫使西方机构公司自我审查/RFA
·美退出人权理事会 滕彪呼吁应将人权与经贸利益挂钩
·“中国政治转变的可能前景”研讨会纪要
·滕彪:川普退出人权理事会是为人权?西藏、新疆民族自决
· The Second China human rights lawyers day
[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