[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers]
滕彪文集
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
·貪官、死刑與民意
·茉莉:友爱的滕彪和他的诗情
·萧瀚:致滕彪兄
·万延海:想起滕彪律师
·滕彪:被迫走上它途的文學小子/威廉姆斯
·中国两位律师获民主奖/美国之音
·独立知识分子——写给我的兄弟/许志永
·滕彪的叫真/林青
·2011年十大法治事件(公盟版)
·Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Under Assault
·《乱诗》/殷龙龙
·吴英的生命和你我有关
·和讯微访谈•滕彪谈吴英案
·吴英、司法与死刑
·努力走向公民社会(视频访谈)
·【蔡卓华案】胡锦云被诉窝藏赃物罪的二审辩护词
·23岁青年被非法拘禁致死 亲属六年申请赔偿无果
·5月2日与陈光诚的谈话记录
·华邮评论:支持中国说真话者的理由
·中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报
·陈光诚应该留还是走?/刘卫晟
·含泪劝猫莫吃鼠
·AB的故事
·陈克贵家属关于拒绝接受两名指定律师的声明
·这个时代最优异的死刑辩词/茉莉
·自救的力量
·不只是问问而已
·The use of Citizens Documentary in Chinese Civil Rights Movements
·行政强制法起草至今23年未通过
·Rights Defence Movement Online and Offline
·遭遇中国司法
·一个单纯的反对者/阳光时务周刊
·“颠覆国家政权罪”的政治意涵/滕彪
·财产公开,与虎谋皮
·Changing China through Mandarin
·通过法律的抢劫——答《公民论坛》问
·Teng Biao: Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case
·血拆危局/滕彪
·“中国专制体制依赖死刑的象征性”
·To Remember Is to Resist/Teng Biao
·Striking a blow for freedom
·滕彪:维权、微博与围观:维权运动的线上与线下(上)
·滕彪:维权、微博与围观:维权运动的线上与线下(下)
·达赖喇嘛与中国国内人士视频会面问答全文
·台灣法庭初體驗-專訪滕彪
·滕彪:中国政治需要死刑作伴
·一个反动分子的自白
·强烈要求释放丁红芬等公民、立即取缔黑监狱的呼吁书
·The Confessions of a Reactionary
·浦志强 滕彪: 王天成诉周叶中案代理词
·选择维权是一种必然/德国之声
·A courageous Chinese lawyer urges his country to follow its own laws
·警方建议起诉许志永,意见书似“公民范本”
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·滕彪访谈录:在“反动”的道路上越走越远
·因家暴杀夫被核准死刑 学界联名呼吁“刀下留人”
·川妇因反抗家暴面临死刑 各界紧急呼吁刀下留人
·Activist’s Death Questioned as U.N. Considers Chinese Rights Report
·Tales of an unjust justice
·打虎不是反腐
·What Is a “Legal Education Center” in China
·曹雅学:谁是许志永—— 与滕彪博士的访谈
·高层有人倒行逆施 民间却在不断成长
·让我们记住作恶的法官
·China’s growing human rights movement can claim many accomplishments
·總有一種花將會開遍中華大地/郭宏治
·不要忘记为争取​自由而失去自由的人们
·Testimony at CECC Hearing on China’s Crackdown on Rights Advocates
·Tiananmen at 25: China's next revolution may already be underway
·宗教自由普度共识
·"Purdue Consensus on Religious Freedom"
·Beijing urged to respect religious freedom amid ‘anti-church’ crackd
·“中共难容宗教对意识形态的消解”
·非常规威慑
·许志永自由中国公民梦不碎
·滕彪维园演讲
·Speech during the June 4th Vigil in Victoria Park in Hong Kong
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers


   Teng Biao
   Lawyer, Beijing Huayi Law Firm

   Lecturer, China University of Political Science and Law
   Originally published in Chinese by the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=206)
   
   The revised Law on Lawyers was passed at the 10th Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 28 October 2007. Despite some positive changes made in regard to lawyers’ consultation with criminal suspects and defendants, access to and photocopying of case files and documents, there has been no change at all regarding the independence of Lawyers’ Associations. The hope amongst academics and lawyers that new provisions in the Lawyers’ Law could be used to undo the malicious effects of Article 306 of the Criminal Law has also been dashed. Article 37 of the newly revised Law on Lawyers,, in particular, deserves attention. It says, ‘The personal rights of a lawyer in practicing law shall not be infringed upon. The representation or defense opinions presented in court by a lawyer shall not be subject to legal prosecution, however, except speeches compromising the national security, maliciously defaming others or seriously disrupting the court order.’; a trap for lawyers, in particular criminal lawyers.
   Lawyers’ legal immunity for statements made in court means that lawyers enjoy the right not to be held criminally or civilly liable for any oral or written statements concerning the submission or evaluation of evidence, or concerning defense statements or other statements made on behalf of litigants or defendants in court. Immunity of lawyers for statements made in court is common practice in all countries under the rule of law. For instance, an 1881 French law already stated that, ‘Lawyers shall not be subjected to charges of libel, defamation and contempt for verbal statements made or written documents submitted in court.’
   The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales says, ‘Oral statements made by lawyers appearing in court should be true and accurate. In general circumstances, lawyers enjoy exemption rights regarding the oral statements made before court.’ ‘Lawyers appearing in court should act with courtesy for the court.’
   Similarly, Section 1 of Article 452 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Luxemburg states that, ‘Oral or written statements made and submitted in court shall be exempted from all criminal charges if the statements in question were related to the litigation or the parties involved in the litigation.’
   In the case of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Hong Kong’s Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct passed in 1990 clearly states that lawyers appearing in court on behalf of clients are immune from legal responsibility toward third parties.
   Polish laws also protect the immunity of lawyers while carrying out their professional duties meaning that except for defamation of the judge or prosecutor, lawyers are cannot be charged with defamation.
   Similarly, the criminal procedures in Japan also provide for exemption from legal responsibility for lawyers appearing in court. Even in cases where there is insufficient evidence, the defense lawyer is exempted from legal liability.
   In the case of France, there are supplementary laws which allow the court to request the lawyers’ association to which a particular lawyer belongs to take disciplinary action against the lawyer for disrespectful conduct in court. The Netherlands has similar provisions which say, ‘in cases where lawyers express contempt for the court, or make fun of or insult clients or witnesses, in oral statements in court or by any other method, the presiding judge may issue a warning and criticize the lawyer. But the presiding judge is not allowed to discipline or punish lawyers because this power lies [exclusively] with the disciplinary committees of the lawyer’s associations.’
   Immunity of lawyers from liability for oral statements in court is also a right recognized by international conventions and treaties. In 1990, the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crimes and the Treatment of Offenders held in Havana, Cuba adopted the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Article 16 of the Principles requires that ‘(g)overnments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.’ And Article 20 of the Principles requires that ‘(l)awyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.’
   What is the point of such a system? Its point is related to the form and nature of litigation. Litigation requires that there be equality between the plaintiff and the defendant. The French philosopher Pierre Manent once said, ‘Equity must take precedence over justice. It is equity that creates and constitutes justice.’ The plaintiff and the defendant are equal subjects of the procedure in civil litigation cases. The relation is more complex in criminal cases; here the prosecution represents the state’s demand that criminal conduct be prosecuted, so naturally, the prosecution is in a more powerful position than the defense. In order to realise the principle of equity in this situation, to achieve an “equity of arms” and to ensure that both sides enjoy the same rights, neither side must attempt to exert any undue influence on the judge. The judge, on the other hand, must be impartial. He must give equally serious consideration to the arguments and statements of fact presented by both parties. Witnesses of the prosecution and defense must be able to provide testimony in the same conditions, they must have equal opportunities, and any bias is absolutely impermissible. The immunity of lawyers regarding oral statements made before the court is also an institutional arrangement that must not be disregarded.
   The lawyers’ immunity in respect of submissions made before the court is determined by the nature of the legal profession and its ethical standards. Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC stipulates, ‘The responsibility of a defender shall be to present, according to the facts and law, materials and opinions proving the innocence of the criminal suspect or defendant, the pettiness of his crime and the need for a mitigated punishment or exemption from criminal responsibility, thus safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of the criminal suspect or the defendant.’ Moreover, the Standards of Ethics and Disciplines of Professional Lawyers issued by the All China Lawyers’ Association state in Article 5 that, ‘lawyers shall abide to honesty, credibility, diligence and responsibility in fulfilling the requirement and responsibility of the profession for the defense of the legal interests of clients.’ In addition to that, Provision 24 requires that ‘lawyers shall fully exercise professional knowledge and skills, complete the entrusted tasks under legal parameters; and with commitment and responsibility, maximise protection of the legal interests of the clients.’
   In order to fulfill the duties set out above, lawyers must do their best to collect evidence favourable to their client and rebut the arguments and evidence presented by the other party in the course of the litigation process. In this process of gathering evidence, challenging the other side’s evidence and making a case for their client lawyers will inevitably come in conflict with the other side, and possibly even with the official ideology of the State. If a lawyer’s performance of his role can be regarded as giving rise to tortuous or criminal liability, this will have tremendously adverse effects on the legal profession

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场