Font Size: a A A

Discretionary Standards And Procedural Controls For Evidence Failure

Posted on:2021-04-25Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:C Y YangFull Text:PDF
GTID:2416330647450444Subject:Procedural Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Since the establishment of the "Evidence Regulations" in 2001,there have been many controversies and discussions.Article 34 of the "Evidence Regulations" in 2001 mainly had the problem that the power of evidence was too severe,but with the successive introduction of article 65 of the 2012 Civil Procedure Law and article 102 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Law Interpretation,the evidence The problem of too severe a lack of authority has been alleviated.However,it is accompanied by the fact that the discretion of the evidence disqualification component itself leads to the increase of the discretion of the judges,which leads to the failure to standardize and unify the treatment of the same or similar cases,directly threatening the effective realization of the legislative disqualification and the objective The demonstration of the judicial credibility of the court.In this paper,through empirical research methods,typical cases are used to demonstrate the understanding and application of judicial practice in the specific cases of evidence disqualification and judgment standards.Interpretation and program control improve the above problems.The article is divided into four parts.The first part is the question.Through the changes in the rules of evidence disqualification and the academic circles' discussion on the justification of evidence disqualification and the constituent elements of evidence disqualification during this period,the changes in the attitudes of evidence disqualification in the academic circles,laws and judicial interpretations are shown.The change of evidence disqualification rules not only reflects the adjustment of value orientation,but also changes the evidence disqualification rules from a single formal standard to a substantive standard.The discretionary elements contained in the substantive standards will make it more uncertain and unclear,and there will be problems that similar cases cannot be handled similarly.If this phenomenon exists in large numbers,it will inevitably undermine judicial unity and the trust of society in justice.Therefore,it is necessary to verify the problem and propose solutions.The second part is the verification of the problem.Describe the practice status of evidence disqualification standards through cases,and point out that different judgments on the discretion standards will lead the court to deal with whether the overdue evidence is disqualified.Among them,it mainly involves judicial practice on "Civil Procedural Law" Article 65 and "Civil Procedural Law Interpretation" Article 102 stipulates that "it is really difficult to submit evidence within the proof period","whether the reason for overdue proof is established","adopt according to different circumstances Or not to accept "," whether there is intentional or gross negligence in overdue proof " and " whether overdue evidence is related to the basic facts of the case ".The third part and the fourth part are to solve the problem.The third part is to sort out the three cases of evidence loss of power through combing the relevant provisions of evidence loss of power,and clarify the applicable logic of the discretion criteria contained in it.In addition,the interpretation of "discrimination","justification","different circumstances","intentional or gross negligence" and "basic facts" in the standard of disqualification of evidence is explained by means of interpretation of the meaning of the text.Reduce the uncertainty in the application of discretionary standards for evidence disqualification.The fourth part is based on the certainty and legitimacy of procedural control.On the basis of the legal interpretation of the third part,it is supplemented by procedural control to limit the discretion of judges on whether evidence is unauthorized.First,the judge explained the discretion criteria.Focus on the analysis of the way the judge clarifies,the matters clarified,the degree of clarification,and the parties' right to object to the judge's interpretation.Second,the parties involved in the determination of discretionary standards.With the space of procedures,through dialogues,statements,debates and objections between parties and between judges and parties.Finally,the two model cases are used to guide the procedural rules of evidence disqualification and the reasons for the judge 's decision,so that the judge can make reasonable judgments and properly deal with whether the evidence is disqualified.
Keywords/Search Tags:loss of evidence, discretion, legal interpretation, procedure participation, Procedural thinking
PDF Full Text Request
Related items