Empirical Study On The Reform Of Judicial Supervision System Of President Or Presiding Judge Of People’s Court

The problem of judicial supervision and management mechanism of the president or presiding judge of the court is one of the core issues in this round of judicial reform.All along,the reform of the judicial supervision and management mechanism of the president or presiding judge of the court has seen a round of turns between full and effective decentralization and enhanced supervision and management.It has presented a situation of‘disassociating from disorder’ and ‘death to death’.The fundamental issue has not always been well resolved.The current round of reform of judicial supervision and management mechanism of the president or presiding judge tried to return to the laws of justice,through the combination of ‘decentralization and management’,to rationalize the ‘two-power relationship’ and promote the scientificization of trial supervision and management mechanisms of the president or presiding judge of the court to realize trial independence,guarantee the quality of case handling,and enhance the credibility of the judiciary.In addition to the introduction,the full text is divided into five parts,a total of more than30,000 words.The first part discusses the rationality and necessity of the president’s or presiding judge’s trial supervision and management.Judging from the current research status of academic circles,affirmative theory is the mainstream view of academic circles.The author also agrees with the mainstream view that in the present and foreseeable future,the president or presiding judge of the court supervises and manages the exercise of jurisdiction to a certain extent is in line with the historical development,the evolution of the rule of law,the overall situation of judicial reform,the judicial realities,and the actual needs of front-line judges.The second part discusses the goal of the reform of the trial supervision and management mechanism of the president or presiding judge in this round of judicial reform.The overall goal of the reform of the president’s or presiding judge’s trial supervision and management mechanism is to,on the one hand,repeal effectively the president’s or presiding judge’s case-handling power and achieve the right to trial by fully and effectively delegating power and breaking down the traditional administrative methods of bureaucratization and administration;on the other hand,clarifying the supervision and management responsibilities of the president or presiding judge of the institute,especially the supervision and management of ‘four types of cases’,avoiding the president’s or presiding judge’s excuse to shirkresponsibility,and the situation of ‘let it go’ and ‘leave it hanging’.The third part discusses the results achieved by the reform of the trial supervision mechanism of the president or presiding judge in this round of judicial reform.Since the inauguration of the president’s or presiding judge’s supervision and management mechanism in 2015,the achievements have been remarkable.Specifically,the following have been achieved: Firstly,the system of the president’s or presiding judge’s reviewing and signing the adjudication instrument has been abolished.Secondly,the mode of supervision and management of the president or presiding judge of the court has changed,that is,the supervision and management means have changed from the original secret to the open and trace;the content of supervision and management has changed from heavy entities to heavy procedures;and the supervision and management methods have changed from full to nodal;the opinion of the president or presiding judge of the court supervised and managed changed from the original imperative to the consultation.Thirdly,the supervision of certain types of cases by the president or presiding judge of the court has become institutionalized and proceduralized which makes the specific type of cases supervision system more complete,and easy to operate and implement.The contents and identification standards of the ‘four types of cases’ have been refined,and other functional departments have been introduced as the subjects for the discovery of ‘four types of cases’ and the details of the supervision procedures have been improved.The fourth part discusses the issues that arise during the implementation of the reform of the trial supervision and management mechanism of the president or presiding judge of the court.Firstly,the implementation of the reform of the review judgment documents is ineffective.The court president and front-line judges have a ‘path dependence’ for the old system,lack of motivation for reform,and serious reforms in the implementation of reforms such as alienation,deterioration,and discount;secondly,the ‘judiciary de-administration’ is not thorough enough,and the traditional ‘patriarchal management’ style of the president or presiding judge has not changed much.The cases of intervening cases through various illegal still exist.The influence of the opinions of the president or presiding judge of the court is still strong.The third one is that the accountability mechanism for intervening in individual cases is ineffective,and it is difficult to form a strong deterrent effect.Fourthly,the documentary regulations for specific types of case supervision systems are overly principled and lack detailed implementation rules,and there are still many loopholes.Fifthly,as the head of thecourt,the president or presiding judge of the court not only has to manage the trial,but also manages administrative affairs such as personnel and finance.The presiding administrator’s use of administrative management to manage trial business is common.The fifth part puts forward the path choice to improve the trial supervision and management mechanism of the president or presiding judge of the court.Firstly,to play a role in various forms of supervision to guard against three types of cases: ‘cases of human feelings’ ‘money cases’ and ‘power case’.Secondly,speed up the improvement of the supervision system for specific types of cases and strengthen the supervision and management of ‘four types of cases’.Thirdly,promote the de-administration of the judiciary continuously,deepen institutional reforms within the courts,and promote the separation of trial operations and administrative management.Fourthly,to promote the return of functions of judges and full-time members of the adjudicating committee etc.make full use of the Professional Judge Meeting.Fifthly,The counselling and guidance functions of the judges’ meeting ensured the independence of the trial.Sixthly,it continued to promote the construction of a unified referee standard,and reduced the room for the president or presiding judge of the court to intervene in cases.