Study On The Jurisdiction Of Wang Chenghzhong’s Civil Case Of Perverting The Law

In November 2018,the second-instance trial of Wang Chengzhong ’ s civil-bending judgment case was designated by the Higher People’s Court of Jilin Province to be tried by the Tonghua Intermediate People’s Court.Since this is the first time in Chinese judicial history that jurisdiction has been designated at the second-instance stage,it has aroused heated discussions on the Internet.In this case,the defendant Wang Chengzhong and his defenders proposed at the stage of the original second instance that because the judges of the Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court belonged to the defendant’s colleagues,the trial of the case may have factors that affect the fairness of the trial results.Some judges of the Liaoyuan Intermediate People’s Court recused themselves.After the adjournment of the second instance,the Higher People’s Court of Jilin Province made a ruling that the second instance of Wang Chengzhong’s case was designated to be tried by the Tonghua Intermediate People’s Court.Questions worth studying about the jurisdiction system in this case include: 1.Whether the general withdrawal raised at the trial stage belongs to the jurisdiction issue or the avoidance question.It can be seen from the law and judicial interpretation that it is the legal right of the parties to apply for recusal.However,the current Chinese law does not provide for the circumstance of all judicial recusal.The parties can only apply for the overall withdrawal of the judicial authority in the case of withdrawal,so the application for overall withdrawal is essentially a change of jurisdiction.In the Wang Chengzhong case,the defendant and his defender applied for changing the trial jurisdiction of the case in the name of recusal based on the above reasons.Although the original court of second instance rejected the application on the grounds that the reasons for the defendant’s application were untenable,the Higher People’s Court of Jilin Province dismissed the case.The designation of the case to another court for second instance determined that the defendant’s application was an application for a change of jurisdiction.2.Whether the designated jurisdiction is applicable in the second instance.Chinese law does not stipulate that designated jurisdiction can only be applied to the first instance stage or can be applied to the second instance stage.In judicial practice,the parties almost always raise jurisdictional objections in the pretrial stage or in the first instance,so there has been no prior discussion on whether the designation can be applied in the second instance.Jurisdiction issues aroused controversy.In the Wang Chengzhong case,the defendant applied for the recusal of all members of the second-instance court in the second instance,which led to the adjournment of the second-instance trial.As a result,the higher court designated jurisdiction.Such an approach did not violate the law,but if such an approach is applied to subsequent cases.Whether it can achieve the effect that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in the case may still need to be marked with a big question mark,because the procedural problems that should be solved in the pre-trial stage are solved in the second instance,which will cause the case to be heard too slowly.There will be a reversal of the procedure,which will ultimately affect the rapid realization of the rights of all parties to the lawsuit.Therefore,the right to object to jurisdiction should be granted to the parties as soon as possible to avoid the recurrence of the situation similar to this case.3.Procedures for applying for change of jurisdiction.Since my country does not clearly stipulate that the parties have the right to object to jurisdiction in criminal proceedings,it is necessary to clarify the objection to jurisdiction of the parties first,and whether the specific procedural design should be consistent with the objection to jurisdiction in civil and administrative proceedings or maintain the existing The legal provisions have their own problems.The current provisions in criminal proceedings are too unfavorable for the defendant,and the grounds for the establishment of jurisdictional objections in civil and administrative proceedings are too loose,which is likely to lead to abuse.desirable.The essence of Wang Chengzhong’s case is still the court’s application to the higher court for the designation of jurisdiction,not directly by the parties.4.It is feasible for the court of second instance to revoke the original judgment and re-designate a court for trial after finding that the court of first instance had a jurisdictional error.my country’s "Criminal Procedure Law" does not stipulate whether the designated jurisdiction can be applied in the second instance stage,so scholars have conducted heated discussions on whether the designated jurisdiction system can be applied in the second instance stage.The point of view from the discussion on the applicable stage of designated jurisdiction is that the designated jurisdiction system should not be applied in the second instance stage.A more appropriate approach should be for the second-instance court to revoke the original judgment when it finds that the first-instance court should not have tried the case,send the case back to the first-instance court,and then designate a specific court to retry the case in the first-instance trial.Although the case may not be dealt with quickly in this case,the speedy handling of the case should be based on fairness.Only when the procedures are followed can a fair and substantive result be obtained.In short,in order to make the designated jurisdiction system better meet the requirements of the judicial status quo,relevant departments should speed up the legal interpretation of designated jurisdiction and supporting systems.