Please scroll down to see the English version

律師被控傷害鐵路檢票員案二審開庭　辯護律師被無理要求安檢

北京律師王宇涉嫌故意傷害鐵路檢票員一案，昨天(2010年6月22日)，北京市鐵路運輸中級法院二審開庭審理。辯護律師在開庭前被無理由求接受安全檢查，法院的做法違反相關法律規定，中國維權律師關注組對此表示強烈關注。

開庭前，北京鐵路運輸中級法院無理要求王宇的代理律師張凱接受安檢，張律師遂依法拒絕，法院卻强制要求他接受安檢，否則拒絕他開庭。根據《最高人民法院法發[2004]14號》司法解釋《人民法院司法警察安全檢查規則》第六條之規定，律師和公訴人出庭履行職務時，憑證件登記即可，無需安檢。法院這樣强制安檢既不符合法律規定，也是對律師的人格侮辱。另外，在庭審休庭的時候，王宇的丈夫包龍軍被法警強行留置在法院，具體原因不明。

38歲的北京律師王宇於今年3月26日被天津鐵路運輸法院以故意傷害罪判刑三年。控罪指她和丈夫於2008年5月4日，在天津西站候車室欲進站送人，在檢票時與4名車站工作人員發生衝突。王宇在擺脫阻攔的過程中，打了其中一名男工作人員一耳光，並推倒另一名女工作人員。事後，經天津鐵路公安處法醫鑒定所鑒定：前者的右耳為感音神經性耳聾，構成重傷；後者構成輕傷。兩人在此案審理中提出了刑事附帶民事賠償。此案2009年7月第一次公開審理後，其後公訴機關申請延期審理補充偵查，此後經過3次延長審限，今年3月16日最後一次開庭。法院宣判，王宇故意傷害罪罪成，判處其有期徒刑3年，並賠償兩原告13萬元。

然而，據張凱律師所述，由立案偵查到審判，多處違反程序正義之基本原則。本案由天津西站派出所立案偵查，派出所對於刑事案件根本沒有偵查權。而事發當日，王宇與鐵路檢票員發生衝突後，曾到該派出所要求處理，但不被理睬，王宇遂向天津鐵路公安處督查室投訴該派出所。七個月後，王宇竟反被該派出所拘留。此外，涉案人原告一方乃北京鐵路局的職工，如今卻由北京鐵路運輸中級法院審理，本質上就是違背程序正義原則。控方亦拒絕提交及隱瞞現場錄影、王宇在派出所所做的筆錄、現場偵查檢驗的筆錄、當日值班日誌等首要證據材料。

一審與二審法院處理王宇律師案件的過程，都有嚴重違反中國相關的法律規定與程序公義的原則，本會要求法院重審王宇律師的案件，重新嚴格審定所有的證據，還王宇律師清白，本會亦促請北京當局嚴懲北京鐵路運輸法院對張凱律師及王宇律師丈夫所作的違法行為。

中國維權律師關注組
2010年6月23日

參考資料：
北京女律師天津西站打人被判刑三年
http://zixun.hbrc.com/rczx/shownews-7150-11.html
包龍軍致天津鐵路運輸法院院長一信
http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/law/1/222773.shtml
女律師被毆投訴 七月後獲刑三年
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5137

Beijing Lawyer’s Conviction on Battery against Ticket Inspectors under Appeal, Defence Counsel Subject to Humiliating Demand for Security Check in Court

The Beijing Railway Transport Intermediate Court commenced a hearing on Beijing lawyer Wang Yu’s appeal yesterday (22 June 2010) upon her conviction for committing battery against ticket inspectors. Before the appeal proceedings began, Wang’s defence counsel was required to be searched for security reasons without any explanation: an act contrary to relevant laws in China. The China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (CHRLCG) voices its deep concern over the incident.

Zhang Kai, defence counsel for Wang, was rushed to be inspected and searched for security check before the court proceeding began. Refused to comply with the demand, he was threatened by the court that unless he co-operated with the guards over the security check, the court would not proceed to his appeal. According to Article 6 of the “Rules on Security Checks by Judicial Policemen of the People’s Courts”, the judicial interpretation notice of “No. 14 [2004] of the Supreme People’s Court”, no security check is required for lawyers and public prosecutors when they exercise their duties in court and they are only required to produce their identification documents for registration. Thus, the court’s arrangement for a compulsory security check on Wang’s lawyer is inconsistent with the orders stipulated by law. The treatment was nothing but humiliation to an advocate, coercing him to act against his will in order to defend his client. Meanwhile, Bao Longjun, Wang’s husband, was forced by the guards to stay in the court building when the proceeding was adjourned. No explanation was given.

Wang Yu, a 38-year-old lawyer in Beijing, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for committing battery by the Tianjin Railway Transport Court on 26 March 2010. She and her husband were accused of initiating and engaging in a conflict with four ticket inspectors while staying in the waiting room of Tianjin West Station on 4 May 2008. Wang was arrested for slapping a male railway worker and pushing down a female railway worker. Forensic specialists from the Tianjin Railway police unit concluded that the male railway worker had suffered sensorineural hearing loss for his right ear. The police unit also found the female railway worker suffering from minor injuries as a result. Subsequently, the two railway workers filed both criminal and civil proceedings against Wang. The trial court heard Wang’s case in July 2009. The prosecutors applied for stay for further investigation. Followed by three extensions of the stay, the trial court adjourned on 16 March 2010 and held Wang guilty of battery and sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment. The court also held that Wang had to pay RMB 130,000 to the plaintiffs as damages in civil proceedings.

Nevertheless, recalled by Zhang, procedural justice has not been followed throughout the process of investigation and conviction. Wang’s case was investigated by the police station of Tianjin West Station, which had no jurisdiction in investigating criminal cases. Indeed, after the conflict between Wang and the ticket inspector, Wang’s request to the police unit to handle the situation was denied. Wang was forced to seek redress in the complaints unit of Tianjin Railway Police Inspection Division. Surprisingly, it was the division which Wang sought remedies detained her without offering solid explanations or justifications. Besides, procedural justice was ignored due to prevalent conflict of interest. The plaintiff of the case was a staff member of Beijing Railway Bureau, but it was tried by the Beijing Railway Transport Intermediate Court, which belonged to the same line of authorities. With no judicial independence in place, such arrangements inevitably attract skepticism on the outcome of the case. As the prosecutors refused to submit evidence such as the videotaped records of the incident in the station, Wang’s statements in the police station and duty logs in the railway station, apparently the conviction was arbitrary and substantiated with no concrete evidence.

The manner in which both the trial court and the appellate court handled the case of Wang Yu resonated deliberate abuse of court process and violated relevant provisions under Chinese law as well as procedural justice. We demand a re-trial to be conducted and all evidence presented in Wang’s case should be scrutinized through an open and transparent procedure such that justice can be seen to be done. We also urge the authorities in Beijing to take actions to sanction personnel in the Beijing Railway Transport Intermediate Court for abusing the court procedure and acted in a way contrary to the relevant laws.

China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
23 June 2010

Reference (in Chinese):
A Beijing lawyer was sentenced to three years in prison for committing battery in Tianjin West Railway Station
http://zixun.hbrc.com/rczx/shownews-7150-11.html

Letter from Bao Longjun to the President of Tianjin Railway and Transportation Municipal Court
http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/law/1/222773.shtml

A female lawyer was accused to have committed battery Sentenced to three years in prison seven months after the incident
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5137

轉寄文章 Share This