What means are there to rescue you, with the right to counsel

April 2006, Beijing lawyer Zhou entrusted to the suspect Ren Shiwei provide legal help and review the prosecution of Renshi Wei after the defence counsel. However, Ren Shiwei from April 5, 2006 by the public security organs to take coercive measures, the public security organs until the end of the investigation, transferred to review the prosecution, Zhou in nearly a year of time and from a number of Shenyang, in the end could not see the parties. March 22 this year, Zhou to the Huanggu District of Shenyang City Court to submit the petition. Courts in the day to "claim does not belong to administrative proceedings by the scope of" the ground has ruled inadmissible. ( "China Youth Daily" April 3) similar to that experienced lawyers Zhou, the vast majority of criminal defence lawyers may have experienced. They not only for the "difficult meeting" troubled by their own legal practice more rights have been violated and the lack of an effective means of relief Beijue helpless. The role of lawyers is to provide legal services to clients in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. If lawyers can not practice rights and interests be safeguarded, it is difficult to expect lawyers in criminal proceedings play their due functions.







Of course, the lawyers met with the right has been infringed the law is not no relief pipeline. In 2002, the law firm of Hunan-Hong Liu Jun-election lawyers had to Guiyang County Public Security Bureau did not perform their functions (the meeting on the protection of lawyers to achieve) the grounds, to the local administrative court proceedings. The court held that although the right to counsel for the meeting from the "Code of Criminal Procedure," but it met with lawyers permission custody of the suspect, the public security organs is the implementation of the specific administrative act, because the act is aimed at lawyers rather than criminal suspects.

For lawyers, the act of administrative nature. Therefore, the act and filed administrative proceedings against, the people's courts should be subject to administrative proceedings the scope of the case.

Guiyang court's decision also confirmed the local public security organs illegal.

Use litigation to seek relief, that is to protect the rights of an effective channel. Zhou also choose a lawyer to the Shenyang City Intermediate People's Court of Appeal on the grounds is a violation of the local public security organs with his right. However, the public security authorities refused to agree to lawyers met with the suspect nature of the act, courts around the big differences. Although there are judicial practice in a court to agree with this act is actionable, the courts are still more like the Huanggu District Court, the public security organs do not agree with the view that lawyers met with the suspect a judicial act and therefore can not initiate the proceedings. These two very different views in different courts, and a direct result of the "co-different contractors."

A unity of the legal system in the country, this can not be avoided embarrassment. In our view, the obligation to the Supreme Court has the responsibility through the improvement of judicial interpretation, or guiding the preparation of cases, to avoid all over the court's understanding of the law mixed. Otherwise, even if an appeal by Zhou won the lawsuit, the only cases in the victory. Because of the lengthy litigation, the lawyers won by the agents in criminal cases, most have no meaning, can only confirm the investigation of illegal organs, and let people assume responsibility for the corresponding legal responsibility only.

In addition, the legislation should also be perfected for violations of the right to counsel with the procedures of the sanctions. For example, in "Criminal Procedure" clearly "illegal evidence exclusion rule", the meeting would violate the right to counsel by the evidence as illegally obtained evidence excluded. Investigation and prosecution authorities to limit or deprive illegal organ with the right to counsel, the proceedings against the law as a specific case, shall constitute a retrial of the reasons for detention center as the most important meeting places should be delinked from the public security organs. The right to custody and the investigation given the right to public security organs, the system for the investigators met with lawyers denied the right to provide a convenience. If the detention center set up in the judicial administrative organs under management, at least in order to establish a supervision and restraint mechanisms, in order to better prevent lawyers met with the right to be against.