Grass Court Performance Appraisal System Limitations And Improvement

Performance testing had been arranged systematically in 《The Second Five-year Reform Outline of People’s Court》. The supreme people’s court had made and issued 《The Guidance for Evaluation System of Case Quality (for Trial Implementation)》 on the base of trial practices by grass-roots courts in2008. The evaluation system of case quality has become an examination table for evaluating the justice, efficiency and result of cases after the first testing. The evaluation system of case quality had been fully implemented in the people’s courts at all levels in2011. Then, the performance testing of grass-roots court with the core of the evaluation system of case quality has been spread formally according to the guidance of the supreme people’s court.The performance testing system of grass-roots court contains20indexes. The achievement of every index becomes more and more meticulous during the operation of three years. However, there are many differences among the improvement of examination achievement, all kinds of social contradictions and the public’s opinions on the trial. As a staff of grass-roots court, the writer proposes his own opinions on the unreasonable index requirements of performance testing of grass-roots court, the infringement of litigant’s rights, influences on the procedure value and influences on independence of trial and decision on the base of the research of performance testing index. The writer also proposes the specific improvement measures of the performance testing system of grass-roots court and the measures of setting up the supervision system by using information technology depending on the related internal research and successful experiences of American judicial performance evaluation mechanism and French judicial performance evaluation project. The aims are to develop the evaluating and guiding effects of performance testing of grass-roots court, and to offer decision-making basis for improving the adjudgment quality of grass-roots courts, the quality of the group, judicial credibility, and the integrated and scientific development of grass-roots courts.