Civil Litigation Evidence Rules Application Ability Training Reader

Author: Jin Changrong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-05-01
Features: The 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that the socialist judicial system must ensure fairness and justice for the whole society. In line with the requirements of fair adjudication and strict enforcement, the Party Committee of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai City has set "promoting justice through openness and establishing public trust through justice" as the working goal for Shanghai's courts in the coming period, emphasizing the need to improve judicial credibility through a high-quality team of judges. It has continued to focus on training judges' professional qualities and adjudication skills. Since 2000, we have spent three years training judges from all adjudication divisions in "one quality and three abilities" (improving judges' professional qualities and the ability to handle court trials, the ability to draft adjudication documents, and the ability to apply the law), and last year we conducted targeted refresher training for civil adjudication personnel across all courts in the city on the application of evidence rules in civil litigation. Evidence plays a central role in civil litigation activities. From the filing and acceptance of a case to the final adjudication, evidence is always involved. Whether a case can be adjudicated openly, fairly, and efficiently is not only an issue of evidence but also an issue of applying evidence rules. The application of evidence rules is the foundation for judges to ascertain facts in court, the prerequisite for applying the law, and the core of drafting adjudication documents. A judge's ability to apply evidence rules is closely linked to their ability to handle court trials, draft adjudication documents, and apply the law, forming the essence of a judge's adjudication skills. In December 2001, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Civil Litigation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Evidence Provisions"). This was a major initiative by the Supreme People's Court to achieve fairness and efficiency in civil adjudication and deepen reforms in the judicial system. After more than a year of adjudication practice, judges in Shanghai's courts encountered many problems, urgently needing theoretical unification of understanding and standardized enforcement at the operational level of adjudication. Based on extensive consultations, the Higher People's Court decided to conduct targeted training for civil adjudication personnel across all courts to improve their ability to apply evidence rules in civil litigation. Through refresher training, we aimed to enhance the theoretical knowledge of all civil judges, ensure the correct understanding and application of the "Evidence Provisions," unify the understanding of enforcement, and study and effectively address some prominent issues in adjudication practice. As a result, we have incorporated this refresher training on the application of evidence rules into the continuation and development of the "one quality and three abilities" training program, as another measure in the construction of professionalization for judges in Shanghai.
Since there was no existing training material that combined evidence theory with adjudication practice, we organized judges to write their own textbooks. In response to some prominent issues that arose in the application of the "Evidence Provisions," we identified six topics: the basic principles of applying evidence in civil litigation, the allocation of the burden of proof, the standard of proof in civil litigation, the collection and investigation of evidence by people's courts, the application of evidence deadlines and new evidence, and the examination and authentication of evidence. The Higher People's Court decided that the civil adjudication divisions and the Adjudication Supervision Division would be responsible for writing the relevant topics, with the division heads as the responsible persons for the research teams. Each research team organized several judges to participate in drafting and discussions based on their assigned tasks.
The 32 judges who participated in the writing group had high academic qualifications (3 with doctoral degrees and 20 with master's degrees), possessing both solid theoretical foundations and rich practical adjudication experience. Through research and investigation, they quickly identified the urgent issues arising from the application of the "Evidence Provisions" and proposed relevant suggestions from the perspective of combining theory with practice. Even for issues where they were not entirely certain, they tried to propose as reasonable solutions as possible based on the basic principles of the "Evidence Provisions." For example, regarding the standard of proof, the "Evidence Provisions" adopted the "high probability" standard of proof but lacked operability. We combined relevant provisions of civil law and adjudication practice to divide the "high probability" standard of proof into three levels in order of decreasing proof requirements: extremely high probability, very high probability, and relatively high probability, and proposed specific principles and methods for their application.
Another example is that the "Evidence Provisions" had a relatively simple regulation on "new evidence." We defined "new evidence" based on the time and reasons for submission, distinguishing between subjective and objective reasons, which could further be categorized as either the subjective reasons of the parties themselves or external objective reasons. This book addresses these issues and resolves some practical problems.