The Reform And Basic Routes Of The Mode Of Judicial Committee Of The People’s Court

Establishing the operating mechanism of jurisdiction in line with judicial rules is an important guarantee for judicial justice, and is also the main content of promoting judicial reform. The Third Plenary Session of the 18 th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China suggests reforming the system of judicial committee, perfecting the system of responsibility in presiding judges and collegial panels handling cases, requiring inquisitors to judge and judges to shoulder responsibility. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 18 th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China also suggests perfecting the system of responsibility of presiding judges and collegial panels, carrying out case handling responsibility system, i.e. to deeply promote the reform in the operating mechanism of jurisdiction from two aspects: reconstructing the subject relationship of the operating mechanism of the judicial power, and responsibility reassurance.The key to constructing scientific and reasonable operating mechanism of jurisdiction is to solve the present problem of the separation between trying and judging, i.e. handling the relationship among the single judge, collegial panel and judicial committee, or essentially among the three kinds of power—jurisdiction, the power to supervise trials, and the power to manage trials. Hence, it is imperative to reform judicial committee.Macroscopically, the reform of judicial committee mainly includes defining its nature and range of functions, clarifying its relationship with collegial panel and the leading party group of the court; microscopically, the reform includes a series of mechanism perfecting problems of it both as a trial group and as a trial supervision and management organization respectively.As a trial group, its problems mainly include: the case-judging mechanism of judicial committee should be in line with judicial rules, such as abiding by the rules of direct and verbal, open, etc., and the order of speaking inside judicial committee. There are other problems as the professionalization of committee members, the enforcement and guarantee of decisions in the inner organizations of judicial committee.As a trial supervision and management organization, it is imperative for judicial committee to further perfect its organization structure, and handle its relationship with the leading party group of the court, so as to strengthen the enforcement of decisions.Both the discussions from the academic circle and the reform practice from the practical field about judicial committee can be included in its mode contents, consisting of two aspects: macroscopically and microscopically. Macroscopically, it mainly refers to its nature, functions, and its relationship with collegial panel and the leading party group of the court; microscopically, it mainly refers to its concrete problems both as a trial group and as a trial supervision and management organization. This is fully embodied in the fourth “five year reform program” of the People’s Court.The discussion on the mode of judicial committee is closely related with the argument over its reservation or revocation. Either from domestic resources or from overseas practice, this research insists on the reasonability and necessity of its existence, but its unreasonable mechanism needs to be reformed.Meanwhile, it should be noted that a series of new contents endow judicial committee with new functions with the deepening of court work, which is the new environment for previous discussions. These are mainly the problems of unifying judgment and further development of trial supervision and management.With the furthering of the system of responsibility in presiding judges and collegial panels handling cases, the problem of unifying judgment is all the more outstanding. The levels of unifying judgment include unifying judging standard nationwide, but also countywide, even citywide. Judicial committees of the People’s Courts of all levels provide guarantee of organization for unifying judgment.In recent years, the number of cases accepted by courts in our country is increasing by 10%. More than 10 millions of cases require the People’s Courts of all levels, esp. the Supreme People’s Court, to strengthen trial management, promote quality and efficiency, and intensify macroeconomic control. It is imperative for relevant institutions to do some work to deal with these newly arising problems. Judicial committees of the People’s Courts of all levels provide organization basis for the enforcement and strengthening of trial management.There are two aspects of the reform: macroscopically and microscopically. Macroscopically, the nature of judicial committee should be firstly classified. Its nature is “dichotomy”, i.e. both a trial group and a trial supervision and management organization. The functions of judicial committee should include not only the well-known judicial function, but also the function of unifying judgment, and the function of trial supervision and management. The present “Pin” structure still applies for the relationship between judicial committee and collegial panel, but not for judicial committee as a trial group. As for its relationship with the leading party group of the court, the latter should provide guarantee and support for decisions by judicial committee. Microscopically, two aspects of mechanism should be perfected. First, as to the reform of case-judging mechanism of judicial committee as a trial group, “dichotomy” of the trying mode is put forward. Direct trying mode should be applied for important cases. Trying mode in written form can be used in negotiation over legal issues. The composition of committee members should be reformed to stress its professionalization. The mechanism of speaking in judicial committee should be perfected, to avoid group mind, and to improve the quality and efficiency of its decision-making. Second, judicial committee as a trial supervision and management organization should perfect its daily working body, handle its relationship with the leading party group of the court, and strengthen the enforcement of its decisions.