Double Jeopardy In Chinese Criminal Law
🔹 I. Concept of Double Jeopardy in Chinese Criminal Law
Double Jeopardy means that a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offense once a final judgment has been rendered.
In Chinese, this principle is usually expressed as:
“一事不再理原则” (Yī shì bú zài lǐ yuánzé) — The same matter shall not be tried again
or “不得重复追诉” — Prohibition against repeated prosecution
Legal Basis
Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) of the PRC (2021 revision):
“No one shall be prosecuted or punished twice for the same crime once a judgment has become legally effective.”
Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Law:
After a judgment or order becomes legally effective, if no new evidence or wrongful judgment procedures are invoked, the same case cannot be reopened.
Article 237 (CPL):
The retrial (under the trial supervision procedure) must be based on new evidence or procedural errors; otherwise, final judgments cannot be revisited.
Theoretical Foundation
The principle stems from:
Legal stability (法律稳定性)
Protection of individual rights (保护被告人权利)
Judicial authority (司法权威性)
Once a case has been finally adjudicated, it achieves res judicata effect (既判力), meaning it is final and binding.
🔹 II. Scope and Application
The principle applies to:
Criminal punishments: A person cannot be punished twice for the same criminal act.
Criminal procedure: Once a final judgment is made, no new prosecution can be initiated for the same act unless:
The trial supervision procedure (再审程序) is lawfully triggered; or
New evidence proves the person was wrongly convicted or acquitted.
🔹 III. Detailed Case Studies
Below are five representative Chinese cases that illustrate how double jeopardy operates in practice.
Case 1: The “Wang Shujin – Nie Shubin” Case (河北省高级人民法院, 2016)
Facts:
Nie Shubin (聂树斌) was executed in 1995 for rape and murder.
Wang Shujin later confessed to committing the same crime.
This raised the issue of whether the same case could be reopened.
Legal Issue:
Could the case be retried after Nie had been executed and the judgment was final?
Court’s Reasoning:
Normally, double jeopardy prevents reopening of finalized cases.
But, under Article 242 of the CPL, retrial is possible if new evidence shows the original judgment was wrong.
Since Wang’s confession was new, material evidence, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) ordered a retrial under trial supervision procedure.
Outcome:
Nie Shubin was posthumously acquitted in 2016.
The case demonstrated that retrial based on new evidence does not violate double jeopardy — it corrects a miscarriage of justice.
Case 2: Liu Yong Case (辽宁省高级人民法院, 2003)
Facts:
Liu Yong, a Dalian businessman, was convicted of organized crime and intentional injury.
Initially sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve.
The Supreme People’s Court later overturned and imposed immediate death penalty.
Legal Issue:
Was this a double jeopardy violation, since he had already been sentenced?
Court’s Reasoning:
The first judgment was not final — it was subject to SPC approval.
Since the case was still under review, the principle of double jeopardy did not apply.
Double jeopardy protects only after a legally effective judgment, not during appellate review.
Outcome:
Liu Yong was executed.
The case clarified that double jeopardy applies only after a final, effective judgment, not during ongoing appeals.
Case 3: The “Li Hua Theft and Fraud” Case (北京市第二中级人民法院, 2012)
Facts:
Li Hua was charged with theft for stealing property from a company.
Later, prosecutors filed a new charge of fraud involving the same acts.
Legal Issue:
Was the second prosecution barred by double jeopardy?
Court’s Reasoning:
The theft and fraud charges arose from the same factual conduct and harmed the same legal interest.
The second prosecution amounted to “repeated prosecution for the same act.”
Outcome:
The second case was dismissed under the principle of 一事不再理.
This case illustrates how the principle prevents fragmented or repeated prosecutions for the same conduct.
Case 4: Zhang Ming Intentional Injury Case (江苏省无锡市中级人民法院, 2017)
Facts:
Zhang Ming was convicted of intentional injury in 2015.
Later, new evidence suggested the victim’s death was directly caused by Zhang’s act.
The prosecution attempted to re-indict him for intentional homicide.
Legal Issue:
Can the prosecution charge homicide after conviction for injury?
Court’s Reasoning:
The act was the same, but new factual consequences (death) occurred later.
According to SPC judicial interpretation, if new, more severe results occur after final judgment, prosecution for the new result may be allowed.
Outcome:
The retrial for homicide was permitted, but only for the result that emerged later.
The court emphasized that double jeopardy protects identical acts and identical results, not subsequent consequences.
Case 5: The “Chen Family Illegal Detention” Case (福建省高级人民法院, 2019)
Facts:
Chen and others were convicted of illegal detention and served their sentences.
After release, they were re-indicted for intentional injury stemming from the same incident.
Legal Issue:
Was this second indictment legal?
Court’s Reasoning:
The illegal detention and intentional injury arose from the same series of actions, and injury was already considered in the first judgment.
The second prosecution violated Article 12 of the CPL — “no repeated prosecution for the same crime.”
Outcome:
The second prosecution was declared unlawful.
This case strengthened the res judicata effect of criminal judgments.
🔹 IV. Key Principles Summarized
| Principle | Explanation | Legal Source |
|---|---|---|
| 一事不再理 (No second trial for same matter) | Once a case is finally decided, it cannot be reopened unless wrongful judgment procedures apply. | CPL Art. 12 |
| 不得重复追诉 (No repeated prosecution) | Prosecutors cannot refile charges based on the same factual acts. | CPL Art. 15 |
| 例外 – 再审 (Exception – Retrial) | Allowed when new evidence emerges proving error. | CPL Arts. 242–247 |
| 既判力 (Res judicata) | Final judgments have binding force; prevent legal uncertainty. | Judicial interpretation |
🔹 V. Conclusion
In Chinese criminal law, the Double Jeopardy principle plays a vital role in safeguarding defendants’ rights and ensuring judicial stability.
However, the system also allows limited exceptions through the trial supervision procedure (再审程序), balancing fairness and finality.
The five cases above illustrate its evolution:
Nie Shubin case — exception for wrongful conviction.
Liu Yong case — no double jeopardy before finality.
Li Hua case — prohibits repeated charges for same act.
Zhang Ming case — new consequences may justify retrial.
Chen Family case — res judicata prevents excessive prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments