Workers

Lawyer and supporters denied entry to court room

After 14 months of delay, the hearing for suspects in the stabbing of Huang Qingnan, a workers’ rights activist from Shenzhen, took place on 16 January

The hearing on 16 January at the Longgang District court was beset with procedural errors and even Huang Qingnan’s lawyer was barred from the court after refusing to take an unnecessary and intimidatory body search.

IHLO has compiled a list of legal concerns below. On 20 January, A demonstration was held by several labour groups in Hong Kong to show support for a fair and just outcome.
 

See IHLO report and link to ITUC Appeal: Suspects in Stabbing of Labour Rights Activist Finally on Trial

 1. Procedural Irregularities

On 24 December 2008, the original date set for the hearing, the Longgang District People’s Court informed Huang that the planned hearing room was too small to hold the number of supporters and observers that had traveled to Shenzhen to be present. Huang, wanting to be sure that the hearing was full legal and his supporters were present had little option but to agree to a postponement. The court later promised that the new hearing would be held in a larger room.

Despite the usual notification period of one week, it was only on the 13 of January that Huang’s lawyers was informed of the new trial date – 16 January. The court informed them that the hearing would take place in the morning at courtroom number 13 which is a big courtroom for up to 300 people. However when they arrived this morning they found that the courtroom had changed. The 'real' courtroom could only hold 30 people, with only 10 seats for the plaintiff and observers.

2. Closed Trial

Despite legislation calling for open trials except in sensitive or cases relating to state security. The Longgang District court barred from the court all the observers from outside of mainland china, including those from Hong Kong.  According to court personnel, this was because of an “order by higher authorities”'. Only a few local workers and representatives of local labour groups were able to attend the hearing.
Under Chinese law trials should be open unless specifically called for and foreign observers are allowed.

The hearing was scheduled to start at 9.30 but because supporters were not allowed into the courtroom and his lawyer was also have difficulties with court personnel about the refusal to allow him entry Huang Qingnan was still outside until 10.00. However, despite the absence of the plaintiff, the hearing started without him until he was able to enter.

3. Unnecessary and intimidatory body search of lawyer

Huang Qingnan’s lawyer was asked by court personnel to undergo a full body search   before he could enter the courtroom. This is not standard practice and the lawyer believed was an unacceptable and intimidatory request as well as in violation of his human rights. He has previously never been asked to undergo such a body search in the course of his defence work.  According to the court security officer the request was also made under “an order from higher authorities”.

Huang Qingnan's lawyer commented that according to Article 6 of the '”Guidance for Judicial Police security Checks”, issued by the Supreme People's Court of the PRC; ''…the prosecutors, lawyers and other officers according to the law only need to provide effective identification and registration documents for checking.

[ The Guidance in Chinese: 第六条司法警察执行安全检查时 ：(一）公诉 、律师 等 依 法 出 庭 履 行 职 务 的 人 员 ， 应 进 行 有 效 证 件 查 验 和 登 记 ；
（ 二 ） 对 参 加 庭 审 活 动 的 诉 讼 参 与 人 、 第 三 人 和 参 加 旁 听 的 人 员 ，在进行证件查验和登记的同时，还应进行人身安全检查、随身携带物品的安全检查。http://law.chinalawinfo.com/newlaw2002/SLC/slc.asp?db=chl&gid=53300

4. Rushed and inadequate investigation

Despite the obvious motives of the attack and the apparent need for the hearing to hear the case in full, in fact the court was not provided with any specific discussion on the defendant’s motives which relate specifically to the work of Huang Qingnan in defending the rights of local migrant workers in labour law disputes. The police were reportedly not requested by the court to investigate motives.  Huang Qingnan's lawyer commented that if, as suggested, the defendants attacked Huang because of loss of earnings from factory rental then evidence should make it clear what plants were owned by the defendant, where these plants were located and which factories were affected.  Secondly, if the defendants were ordered to attack Huang by a third party as is believed then the court should find out the real suspect and not use scapegoats. Thirdly, if the defendant is not really a landlord but instead, as some suggest he simply received protection money from factories by providing these factories protection then the case also involved organized crime.    

All defendants pleased guilty. The hearing was, as is often the case with sensitive issues, rushed through with the bare minimum of discussion and evidence presented. The hearing finished at 13.40 and was adjourned without a judgment or a date for the announcement of a judgment it is likely that a final judgment may be given during the holiday period in China. We expect a mid range sentence – it is obvious that the local authorities are aware of the international support for Huang and will not let the suspects go free but at the same time, the blatant attempts by the court to reassert their authority over Huang, his supporters and his lawyer by denying them an open trial and by subjecting his lawyer to a body search suggest that the court will not pass an overtly heavy sentence nor set a particularly generous compensation figure.