|
|
|
| Criminal Fast-track Cases Being Advisable to Adopt Limited Second Instance System: An Empirical Analysis Based on 1,055 Judgments |
| Mo Xiangyi, Ye Sijia |
| School of Law, Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha 410205, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Since the criminal fast-track adjudication procedure was added to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018, criminal trials have formed a “Trinity” pattern that differs in ordinary procedure, summary procedure and fast-track adjudication procedure in China, laying a specific path for the reform goal of “accurate trials with complex cases, and fast trials with simple ones”. From the perspective of development and norms, the value orientation of the fast-track trial procedure should be based on “Efficiency Theory Based on Justice”, that is, the efficiency value is the top priority of the criminal fast-track adjudication procedure, but the basic position of the justice value cannot be abandoned.Because the essence of fast-track adjudication procedure is the system of leniency on admission of guilty and acceptance of punishment, the confrontation in fast-track adjudication procedure case rarely happens. Neither does the appeal against first instance sentence from the prosecution, nor from the defense parties. After having investigated 1,055 cases that entered the second trial, we come to the following conclusions: Firstly, the abuse of the appeal right by the defendant deserves our attention. This is mainly manifested in the defendant’s appeal on the ground of excessive sentencing or withdrawing it after blank appeal, in order to achieve the purpose of staying longer in the pre-trial detention centre or reduce the punishment. All these cases reveal the fact that the defendant abused the appeal right, which caused unnecessary waste of judicial resources and reduced the efficiency value of the fast-track adjudication procedure. Secondly, it is justifiable for the court of second instance to amend or cancel the original one and remand it to the original court for retrial in case of errors in the applicable laws, or major facts of the first instance.As for the trial instance system of fast-track adjudication cases, the view of “the first instance is final” is not in line with the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Blindly enlarging the binding force of confession of guilt or punishment agreement may lead to wrong cases, and copying foreign procedures of penalty orders will tend to delay the litigation. This view attaches the importance of efficiency but ignores its justice. Neither its rationale nor its practical basis is sufficient. The view of “the second trial is final” strongly amends the major justice defects in the system of “the first trial is final”. However, there are shortcomings as well if we choose to tolerate the abuse of the defendant’s appeal right and to limit the fast-track adjudication procedure to the first instance for the sake of efficiency value. The view of “appeal permission system” claims that the defendant has the appeal right in second instance, but with the condition that the court of second instance has confirmed that he/she has sufficient reasons to do so. It is more reasonable to change the current “right appeal” into “discretionary appeal”. However, this view advocates that the second instance protest of the procurators should also be filtered and examined, which is either difficult to carry out or unnecessary in practice.The system of limited second instance may be applied to fast-track adjudication cases. While retaining the procurators’ protest right in the second instance, the system of non-cause appeals could be changed into cause ones, and a review and filtering mechanism could be set up for the defendant’s appeal, so as to limit the cases without necessary correction to second instances. Here are my recommendations: Firstly, the appeal must be presented in the written form with sufficient reasons, which should focus on the defendant’s self-willingness, authenticity and legitimacy of the confession and punishment, the legitimacy of the original trial procedure, and his/her meritorious behavior after the first instance. Secondly, the scope of the review should be limited to the appeal’s reasons alone. There is no need for a comprehensive review of both the facts and application of law involved in the first-instance trial. Thirdly, the review process should be simple and effective by focusing on the key points. After comparing all the four documents in second instance, i.e. the judgment of first instance, the grounds for appeal, the sentencing proposal and the confession of guilt and punishment, the court has finished the evaluation of the evidence of the first instance and the trial conduct to meet the requirements of the “substantive review”.
|
|
Received: 14 May 2020
|
|
|
|
1 刘泊宁： 《论刑事诉讼阶段之跨越式发展——刑事速裁程序构建的另一种思考》，《法学》2017年第9期，第 168-179页。
2 孙谦： 《全面依法治国背景下的刑事公诉》，《法学研究》2017年第3期，第3-23页。
3 王爱立： 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法释义》，北京：法律出版社，2018年。
4 沈德咏： 《统一刑事司法标准推进严格公正司法——略论人民法院推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革的工作重点》，《人民司法》2015年第19期，第4-7页。
5 陈瑞华： 《认罪认罚从宽制度的若干争议问题》，《中国法学》2017年第1期，第35-52页。
6 郑瑞平： 《比较法视野下我国刑事速裁程序之完善——以处罚令制度为视角》，《中国刑事法杂志》2016年第6期，第16-26页。
7 高一飞、张露： 《看守所短期余刑执行的实证分析》，《西南政法大学学报》2015年第1期，第29-40页。
8 闵丰锦： 《认罪认罚何以上诉：以留所服刑为视角的实证考察》，《湖北社会科学》2019年第4期，第125-135页。
9 陈瑞华： 《程序性制裁理论》（第二版），北京：中国法制出版社，2010年。
10 樊崇义： 《关于认罪认罚中量刑建议的几个问题》，《检察日报》2019年7月15日，第2版。
11 朱孝清： 《认罪认罚从宽制度中的几个理论问题》，《法学杂志》2017年第9期，第10-21页。
12 危浪平： 《坚持严肃追责与依法保护相统一全面落实司法责任制》，《人民法院报》2020年9月6日，第2版。
13 骆惠华： 《以问题为导向破解三大难题——中央政法委涉法涉诉信访改革三个配套文件解读》，《人民法院报》2014年9月12日，第1版。
14 汪建成： 《以效率为价值导向的刑事速裁程序论纲》，《政法论坛》2016年第1期，第119-124页。
15 最高人民法院刑一庭课题组、沈亮： 《关于刑事案件速裁程序试点若干问题的思考》，《法律适用》2016年第4期，第18-22页。
16 奥］曼弗雷德·诺瓦克： 《民权公约评注：联合国〈公民权利和政治权利国际公约〉》，毕小青、孙世彦译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2003年。
17 孙志伟： 《意大利认罪协商程序及其对刑事案件速裁程序的启示》，《河北法学》2016年第4期，第142-150页。
18 牟绿叶： 《认罪认罚案件的二审程序——从上诉许可制展开的分析》，《中国刑事法杂志》2016年第3期，第 105-121页。
19 王超： 《刑事审级制度的多维视角》，北京：法律出版社，2016年。
20 张吉喜： 《刑事诉讼中的公正审判权——以〈公民权利和政治权利国际公约〉为基础》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2010年。
21 赵建文： 《〈公民权利和政治权利国际公约〉第14条关于公正审判权的规定》，《法学研究》2005年第5期，第133-148页。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
