A Research On Criminal Pretrial Conference In China

Being a part of the newly amended Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China,The Pretrial Conference Procedures of China is the fruit of combining the merit of both the British and American legal systems and reality of China’s own system. By adding this procedure between the original prosecution and trial process,this deed,complying with judicial justice, is conducive to ensuring the human rights and litigation rights of the accused; in the meantime, justice and efficiency are maintained because of performance of centralized trial.Paragraph 2 of Article 182 of the amended Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, which has come into force since January 1,2013, stated that the court is entitled to hold a conference to gather opinions from the public prosecutor, the parties, the defenders and the agents ad litem in terms of lists of withdrawals and witnesses, and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.This rule signifies the establishment of pretrial conference procedures in China, while it is far from being a sound judicial system. Therefore, the function of this conference is not fully realized. Fouraspects of reasons can account for its weakness. Firstly, There is no clear specifications for its application and contents demanding discussion. Secondly, it is difficult to enforce, especially the issue of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. Thirdly, its validity is not explicit. Finally, it is hard to avoid the judge’s subjective prediction.There is no denying that the pretrial conference procedures has played a positive role in ensuring human rights of the accused and improving trial efficiency; however its weaknesses also brings challenges to a just and fair trial and sentence. In this paper, the author, after analyzing overseas materials on this issue, suggests establishing a sound pretrial conference procedures better satisfying the needs of judicial practices in China via confirming the pretrial conference procedures an independent role, defining its applicable cases and contents, regulating the steps of exclusion illegally obtained evidence and strengthening its supervision policy.