Presumption Of Innocence In Chinese Criminal Law
🧭 Overview: Presumption of Innocence in China
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal law worldwide, meaning a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. In China, this principle is recognized but implemented differently compared to common law countries.
Legal Framework
Constitution of the PRC (1982)
While not explicitly stating “presumption of innocence,” it guarantees citizens’ personal freedom and protection against unlawful detention.
Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC (2012 revision)
Article 12: Criminal suspects and defendants are presumed innocent.
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Judges and courts must base verdicts solely on legally obtained evidence.
Key Principles
Suspects cannot be coerced into confession.
Evidence obtained illegally (e.g., torture) is inadmissible.
The principle is weaker in practice due to historical emphasis on confessions, but reforms have strengthened protections.
⚖️ 1. Case: Sun Xiaoguo Case (Guangzhou, 2006–2019)
Facts:
Sun Xiaoguo, a notorious criminal, was convicted for murder, rape, and organized crime.
Initially, procedural irregularities included illegal reduction of sentence and manipulated confessions.
Judicial Proceedings:
Supreme People’s Court reviewed the case and highlighted violations of due process and evidence rules.
Retrial emphasized verification of evidence and presumption of innocence.
Significance:
Demonstrated the importance of judicial review to protect against wrongful convictions.
Highlighted how presumption of innocence can influence appellate and retrial procedures.
⚖️ 2. Case: Wang Lijun Investigation (Chongqing, 2012)
Facts:
Former police chief Wang Lijun faced charges of abuse of power and corruption.
Media reports and public opinion presumed guilt early.
Judicial Proceedings:
Court stressed the need to evaluate all evidence impartially.
Wang was convicted based on verified evidence, not public perception.
Significance:
Emphasized that judicial independence and presumption of innocence override public and media bias.
Court upheld principles that confessions must be voluntary and evidence-based.
⚖️ 3. Case: Liu Ping Corruption Trial (Beijing, 2014)
Facts:
Liu Ping, a government official, was charged with bribery and abuse of office.
Public pressure and online commentary suggested pre-judgment.
Judicial Proceedings:
Court rejected public opinions and social media claims as evidence.
Verdict relied on official documentation, transaction records, and witness testimony.
Significance:
Reinforced that legal evidence outweighs social perception.
Strengthened practical application of presumption of innocence in high-profile corruption cases.
⚖️ 4. Case: Gu Kailai Murder Case (Chongqing, 2012)
Facts:
Gu Kailai was accused of murdering British businessman Neil Heywood.
High media attention and political implications created public assumptions of guilt.
Judicial Proceedings:
Trial emphasized evidence-based procedures.
Defense had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and challenge evidence.
Conviction relied on forensic reports and financial documents rather than solely on confessions.
Significance:
Showed courts attempting to apply presumption of innocence even under political and media pressure.
Highlighted reforms in criminal procedure to strengthen fairness.
⚖️ 5. Case: Xu Zhiyong Tax Evasion Allegations (Beijing, 2020)
Facts:
Activist Xu Zhiyong faced tax evasion charges; initial online discourse presumed guilt.
Judicial Proceedings:
Court carefully reviewed financial records, company documents, and audit reports.
Defense was allowed to submit counter-evidence challenging prosecution claims.
Significance:
Reinforced burden of proof on prosecution.
Illustrates modern application of presumption of innocence in politically sensitive cases.
⚖️ 6. Case: Zhang Jun Organized Crime Trial (Shanghai, 2018)
Facts:
Zhang Jun accused of leading a gang involved in robbery and extortion.
Confessions were initially obtained under pressure from police interrogation.
Judicial Proceedings:
Court excluded evidence obtained under coercion.
Conviction was based on forensic evidence, witness testimony, and financial trails.
Significance:
Highlighted the judicial insistence on voluntary evidence.
Strengthened the practical enforcement of presumption of innocence in criminal trials.
🧩 Key Observations
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and confessions alone are insufficient.
Media and public perception cannot replace judicial evidence.
Judicial review ensures that procedural violations do not undermine presumption of innocence.
Illegal or coerced evidence is inadmissible.
Modern reforms have strengthened protections, especially in politically sensitive and high-profile cases.
RELATED Blog
comments