A traffic accident that can no longer be simple has been brought to justice. The three traffic police officers were convicted of negligence while at the same time being convicted of abuse of authority. These two diametrically opposed charges are interesting and absurd and surprising.
Just after the spring of 2008, there was a strong news inside the police, and three policemen from a county in Henan province disappeared, saying that they had run away precisely because they had left a tear-throwing letter to the Director of Public Security before leaving. This is undoubtedly a heavy news story, but it is tightly sealed, unknown to the outside world, and no one knows why the three policemen fled and where they fled.
An urgent consultation between the heads of the Public Security Directorate and the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office took place, and internal requests and reports were launched on a case-by-case basis.
The outcome of the meeting, coordinated by the CNLA, was an immediate online arrest warrant for three police officers who had escaped; a further study by the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office of the cases of the police officers involved, which must be qualified with precision and without error; and a mobilization by the public security organs of all efforts to do the work of relatives and friends and classmates of the fugitive police, to contact the three police officers by all possible means and to tell them to believe in the organization and to return as soon as possible to deal with the problem.
So what is going on this year that would scare the three policemen and force them to choose the path of death?
The case has to start with Operation Five One, conducted by the Henan Public Security Department in 2007.
In February 2007, the Public Security Department of Henan Province issued a document ordering the public security traffic authorities throughout the province to implement a 24-hour system of joint patrols on the provincial and provincial roads in order to ensure the safety of the provincial and national roads. The document also stresses, in particular, that during the upcoming golden week, provincial and national roads belonging to each jurisdiction must be “policed during the day, light at night, police on the road and in violation of the law”.
Following the issuance of this redhead document, the public security organs throughout the province have drawn up specific programmes for its implementation, and work plans and duty schedules have been drawn up in various localities and municipalities.
In accordance with the traditional working model, after the issuance of documents at the municipal level, the district districts have further refined their tasks to the teams, stations and people. A large network of road safety surveillance for festivals has been opened.
Such initiatives now appear to be a positive road law enforcement model, which, in a more general sense, is a web-based law enforcement road-guarding campaign and a real-life show of real energy for the benefit of the population.
However, an accidental “accident” occurred in an event that could have added points to the Henan public security and traffic police, which led to a cleavage by the public security and prosecution authorities, who, in the absence of coordination, abandoned their authority over the three police officers, who felt a desperate and abandoned hope and eventually turned into a tragedy of flight.
That was why a rescue field had been set in motion, requiring the presence of a professional defence lawyer.
The case originated in one night on duty.
At the end of April 2007, the Public Security Directorate of one county met and deployed a five-to-one-a-one-a-week roadwork programme, where the Deputy Director-General was present in person, to further quantify the national and provincial roads of the district district to each of the operational teams and to allocate different patrol distances according to the number of personnel.
The main party in this case was assigned the task to the security squadron of Sing’s location to work in the province of the district, and on 28 April, as Deputy Commander, was again assigned the task to a specific patrol unit on the eve of the May 1 Labour Day. One of his own teams was responsible for the 11 km section from the Temple of Ten Mile in the northern part of the county to the White Road in the southern part of the city. That evening, they were full of oil and equipment and began 24-hour, uninterrupted road patrols at the request of the Provincial Public Security Department.
At 4 a.m. on the morning, as Zhisheng’s patrol team was preparing to turn around and return, he suddenly heard an irregular car boom, which, based on years of traffic police experience, judged to be a potentially severely overloaded truck crossing the bridge. Aware of the serious consequences of such a serious overload of violations, he decided to stop immediately and set up a road check.
When he arranged for one of the other two staff members to open a warning light on the side of the road and one to open a light-lighted guide vehicle in the middle of the road to park, he did not seem to have the intention of slowing down when he had seen a large truck flying with a bright light.
The traffic police on the side of the road and the traffic alarm in the middle of the road continued to signal that the truck was parked side by side, but the truck did not heed the signal at all and did not stop by side at all, as it appeared to be preparing to break through.
At that point, a large truck was also coming in at a fast pace behind the truck, watching as it was not slowing or leaning, and the vehicle in the back attempted to break through the first vehicle from the right side of the vehicle and break through. At that moment, however, the van in the front meant something to the right, and the car in the back suddenly turned in a dozen directions and proceeded to overturn from the left of the first car. It was too late and fast to hear the sound of a bang, and the car caught up to the back of the front car. The second car was followed by three large trucks with a companion.
I saw an accident and immediately called Zhi-sung and rescued 120 wounded while reporting to the command center of the Public Security Bureau. At the first point, the ambulance, the command vehicle and the survey vehicle arrived at the scene and, after intense rescue, the second car was found to have broken apart and three people were killed and wounded.
After a technical survey, both vehicles were seriously overloaded and exceeded 100 per cent of the authorized load.
Next, the traffic police issued a certificate of liability for accidents based on a traffic accident, holding the rear vehicle primarily responsible. Following the completion of the medical and post-medical treatment, the insurance company also paid the parties in full and on time, and the accident was successfully completed and accepted by the parties.
There is no legal problem with dealing with such an accident, but soon after returning to Hong Chang, the so-called “victim” received full compensation and wrote to the relevant authorities about the “violation” of the Guangshan traffic police, which naturally has no substantive legal consequences.
It is unexpected, however, that soon after the incident, a decree was issued from one of the provincial leaders, which went to the provincial prosecutor’s office, and then to the Sinyang city prosecutor’s office, where the Guangshan traffic police was included in the investigation, and the police officer in question became a “suspect” to the three men who were on duty for the night.
Despite the leadership ‘ s instructions, at first there was little to believe that there was any responsibility for the traffic police in this accident, which was carried out in accordance with the law and superior documents. It was a traffic accident between the law enforcement officers and, in this case, a serious violation by both parties, which is now too long for the prosecution to investigate the traffic police.
At that time, the Public Prosecutor’s Office also recommended that the public security authorities should go to the “victims” and pacify them, since they had been visited and instructed by their leaders. After receiving this opinion, the head of the traffic police unit of the Guangshan police station went to Xu Chang to offer condolences to the “victim ” side. They came back after the public security organs had paid tributes, apologized, paid money, and the other party had offered their understanding that the matter was over.
I can’t believe it, it’s only a few days since Chang’s situation has changed again, and the victims have not agreed and have to pay compensation. On this occasion, they brought back the letter of understanding of the “victims ” .
However, it was not assumed that the chief of the traffic police had landed in front of his feet and that the news came from behind, and that the “victim ” was still not satisfied. And he said, “It’s important to give light to the police.”
The operation behind it is not apparent on the surface. One positive news is that the so-called “victims” are professional transport owners, with long-term and severe overloads of coal being transported through Guangshan County, where traffic police have indeed detected serious overloads of their illegal activities. As later the survey concluded, they actually carried more than 10 times the actual load of the approved several tons of trucks, or 100 per cent overload. Moreover, each time they cross the border in the middle of the night in order to resist the investigation, they regularly organize a series of one-time traffic passes, encounter one or two police traffic inspectors and break through the checkpoint without fear.
It is not clear what force lies behind this background, but after the incident they found a village in which they held a leadership position in the province, even though it had withdrawn from the main leadership position, but the rank and relationship remained. Under a system such as China, he is also called the provincial leader. So when the village was “disaster” and became “victims”, the leadership played a role. A piece of paper may not appear to indicate any illegal operation, but the specific staff members tend to refer to the “leadership intent”. Thus, the final result is that the prosecution service holds the three police officers criminally responsible.
The decision was not to be taken by the public security organs, and the Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Office for the Investigation of Misdemeanours acted immediately to open a case against three police officers for negligence. On several occasions during the following day, three police officers were summoned to the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office to make repeated statements and complete the materials.
A week later, the facts of the case were clarified. In fact, the facts of the case were established as early as the first time the public security organs had investigated the case as a traffic violation. On the basis of these materials, the prosecution has not been able to find a case of “negligence ” in a traffic accident. At least what happened when the police officers stood at their posts at midnight at the request of the Provincial Public Security Department, in addition to showing that they were doing their duty, was a very unusual thinking.
When the tone was set, the prosecution decided to hold three policemen in criminal custody. At noon that day, the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Public Prosecutor’s Office against Misdemeanour went to the Public Security Bureau to arrest the person, where they found the Director of Public Security and issued a warrant for his detention, saying that he would normally be “good” to the Public Security Director of the Public Prosecutor’s Office during his detention. The one that sank his face and said, “According to the law, the detention should be carried out by the public security organs.” “It’s time to get a cigarette and get up and stop talking to the prosecutors who are waiting to arrest.
One of the officials said, “The chief, we are also on duty, and there is no prejudice to the brothers of the public security. The case was ordered above, and we have no choice. He then put his detention decision on the director’s desk and said, “Please ask the director to cooperate. I’m sorry.
The chief of public security was so angry, he slapped him on the table, he stood up and said, “If you can catch him, I’m afraid you can’t take him away!” I’m sorry.
The barrel of gunpowder had already been set on fire, and several prosecutors had no idea that the Director of Public Security was so angry that he could not answer the phone and had to leave.
Returning to the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office, the prosecutors immediately reported to the Prosecutor-General the arrest of a person who had not been humiliated. As soon as he heard, he said, “Call the municipal prosecutor ‘ s office and ask for support from his superiors. I’m sorry.
A few days later, news came that the district prosecutor ‘ s office had referred the case to the municipal prosecutor ‘ s office, which had decided to arrest the three policemen directly. One legal issue, however, naturally refers to the fact that detention and arrest must be carried out by public security organs, and that the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office does not have its own powers of enforcement.
In the event that the relationship between the Public Prosecution Service and the public security organs is deadlocked, the Municipal Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office has decided to assign a different jurisdiction to the case.
At that time, the Guangshan County Public Security Bureau also felt that its practice was excessive, and when it became known that the Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office had painfully decided to make the case an “iron case”, they also said that they would no longer be involved in the coordination of the case and would no longer plead with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The public security organs have previously reported the case to the county council, to the county government, to the municipal council and to the municipal council, in the hope that the leaders would organize the public prosecutor’s office and “coordination” between the two organizations under the auspices of the deputy mayor in charge of political law and the Political Law Commission. Unfortunately, instead of being coordinated, the final case has become increasingly complex and even the charges have changed several times.
During the months of fermentation, all the people knew that the case had been approved by the province, but none of the provincial leaders had seen the original text, so no one dared to cancel the case.
Sasagawa County is located on the border of Wei River and is bordered by Kwangshan County, where for many years it has been possible for many cases to be brought before it.
Upon receipt of a decision to arrest, the Sasakawa County Public Security Directorate issued a warrant for the arrest of the three policemen.
Unsurprisingly, when police officers from the Sasakawa County Public Security Department went to Guangshan County Public Security Bureau to arrest people in a police vehicle, one terrible news came to light that Shou Sheng disappeared with two other police officers involved.
This information was also not known to the head of the Guangshan Public Security Bureau, and that morning the Director General had found a letter on the floor of the door that opened the office at work, which was written to the Director General by three police officers. In the letter, they said that they were grateful for the efforts they had made for them, but that the case was finally not coordinated, and that they felt helpless as an abandoned child and did not want to cause further trouble to the Director after learning that the Public Security Bureau was under pressure and was no longer involved in the coordination of the case.
They believe that, in the interest of the security of the population and the stability of society, and in accordance with the provisions of the law and the requirements of the Public Security Office, on the golden holiday of resting and travelling with their families, they have been holding themselves in small vans day and night, with their saddles running 24-hour axes. It is sad to hear complaints of violations after they have been brought to justice. They are reluctant to go to prison for this and have to go out to earn their living. I hope the brothers can take care of their wives and children.
This letter is full of incisive letters, and it is like a sharp knife that cuts into the hearts of the first-line police officers of the public security organs.
One of the police officers who came to arrest by the Sasagawa District Public Security Bureau was a university student who joined Shun Xing and was admitted to the security forces. It’s just that people ran away and the mission couldn’t be accomplished. It was also the first time that the Director-General had to say, “You are wanted online according to the law.” I’m sorry.
He was prepared to flee for a long period of time without choosing to escape with his two brothers. Later information was received that they had fled to Guangdong in a breath and were working in a small factory without identity cards.
The people ‘ s police, once enviable, and the former lieutenant, were working in a pile of civilian labour, no different than others, but with no one to tell. The police would have let them know that such escape would be wanted on the Internet and that, during working days, they could not go out as freely as normal domestic workers, nor dare to keep in touch with their families.
At home, all their relatives, classmates and friends were mobilized to find the whereabouts of the policemen. But for months, nothing.
The deadlocked prosecutor ‘ s office is not idle, but no progress has been made in pursuing the fugitive police. It is clear that the pursuit of police officers is not the prosecutor’s strength.
People can’t catch them, but it’s their trick to turn them in.
Indeed, when the decision to approve the arrest was taken, the case was referred to the prosecution service, and the prosecutor’s office staff repeatedly thought that the offence of negligence was too far-fetched and changed it to “abuse of office”.
This is all the more interesting because negligence and abuse of functions are inherently two of the offences in the law, and the two counts are described in the exact opposite way: one is irresponsible and one is irresponsible; one is the one that is in charge and one is the one that is not in charge. In the same prosecution, a case was identified as an offence of negligence and later as an offence of abuse of authority, which was a joke!
However, the public prosecutor ‘ s office was unable to move beyond the established sword of culpable justice, and they were derelict in their duties at short notice, with the offence of abuse of power moving up and down to the next step according to the statutory time.
Soon after the indictment was reviewed, the charges in the case were reversed and the case continued to be prepared for prosecution for negligence.
At this point, however, an inescapable issue is on the agenda, the accused is absent, the planned transfer to the Court cannot be carried out and the Court would not have taken up the case without the accused.
Coordination between the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office and the Public Security Bureau, which had been in contact with each other for several months, began again. The Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office hopes that the public security authorities will find a way to bring back a few policemen for trial, while the Public Security Directorate insists that it does not know where they are and that it does not question cases that are under alien jurisdiction, and that they are innocent.
In the end, this deadlock will require leadership coordination, and soon, a new programme, coordinated by the Political and Judicial Commission, will come down: “The public security organs will find a way to get people back, the public prosecutor’s office will not be allowed to take coercive measures of detention and take bail pending a court decision. Both public security prosecutors refrain from interfering in court trials and must respect the opinion of the court, whether convicted or not. I’m sorry.
After this result of coordination, the public security organs discussed the need to win the case before the courts, given that they had decided to rely on court decisions. Thus, the issue of having a good lawyer win the battle is on the agenda. The Director-General’s office held urgent consultations, and the routes came together, and one of the deputy directors thought of me, saying he had a good relationship with me and would like to see if I could be asked to assist the police in their defence. Several relationships have swung, and I had to head up and take this case, which has been coordinated for a year without results.
However, I say that the accused police have three members, and I can only defend one person, but I did not expect the Public Security Bureau to settle the score, saying that the situation of several persons is the same and that it would be better to have a few lawyers at a different level than to have you defend yourself. This arrangement is not in accordance with the law and I have to consider how one lawyer can defend the three accused in court.
After accepting the case, I had to meet with my client, but the interesting thing about this case is that the prosecution does not know where the accused is, let alone where.
Perhaps telepathic, as I was thinking about the issue, there was a message that several police officers had contacted their families to enquire about the progress of the case. I spoke to the head of the Public Security Bureau in a timely manner, saying, “It is not an option for the police officers who have been running for so long, and I believe that this case is an exculpatory one, and I will do my utmost to secure an innocent outcome for them, at least to preserve their official status. I’m sorry.
The head of the Public Security Bureau asked me, “Are you sure? I’m sorry.
I said, “A common sense lawyer can’t make such a promise to his client, but since you trust me so much, and you’ve given me a few layers of relationships to find me, I dare say so. Didn’t the head of the Superior Council say that no one should interfere with the Court and that he had full confidence in the Court, and that now it would be relatively minor to have jurisdiction, and I think that as long as the judge had some conscience, I could have persuaded him to find three policemen innocent. My bottom line is at least a waiver of punishment, and if I do not do so, I will go to the Supreme Court and to the Supreme Court to reflect the case, and I will seek the attention and sympathy of the media, which will ultimately not put the police in jail. I’m sorry.
I also made a suggestion: “If you run away, you can’t get caught easily, if a few policemen are stuck at any point in the road, it’s over.” It would be better to have the families inform the police officers that they are looking for a letter from the Public Security Bureau or the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office. It would be preferable to turn themselves in by a traffic police unit and then to inform the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office after the police force has made a statement and identified itself. This would have given an opportunity to surrender. Together with the fact that they will not be held in custody upon their return, coordinated by the Commission, there is merit in waiting for a trial, even if they are guilty. I’m sorry.
As soon as the Director heard the proposal, he said, “I’ll find a way for their families to contact them as soon as possible.”
A few days later, after the police officers had surrendered themselves, they were personally handed over to the Public Prosecutor ‘ s Office by the head of the Public Security Department.
Such a move has prevented the public security authorities from taking action and has made it even more difficult for them to inform the families of the policemen. He said he would come back to court and not go to the prison, but was sent to the prison on the first day of his return. No one can bear such a loss of confidence, and several members of the family have been emotional and have found a VIP in the PSB.
In this context, the leaders of the Public Security Bureau were speechless, and the leader who contacted me said to me, “As you can see, we have no choice but to win and not lose. I said, “In that case, let’s go to court, if they can do it, and we can do it.” The prosecutor’s office went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, it wasn’t nothing. This logic was later found to be incompetent, because they did not find the police officers who stood at their posts during the holidays in the middle of the night and became irresponsible and guilty of “dereliction of duty”.
Thus, when the case was sent to the Public Prosecution Service, it was argued that it was an abuse of authority and random car searches in the middle of the night, leading to an accident. However, researching them has also revealed that, according to the Law on Road Traffic of the People’s Republic of China, traffic police must “remediate immediately” when they detect violations. Then, at 4 a.m., some of their policemen found that more than 100 per cent of the vehicles were overloaded and passing through vital bridges on a continuous basis. It is clear from this analysis that the abuse of authority committed by several police officers in connection with car searches is also untenable.
Later, the Public Prosecution Service finally found in a copy of the Ministry of Public Security’s Code of Conduct for Road Enforcement of Traffic Police, a text which they considered to be a legal asset, and it was for that reason that the Public Prosecution Service eventually changed the charge of the case back to the charge of “negligence”.
The article, which is considered “baby” by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, reads: “Performance on the road should be accompanied by a warning sign, a warning light, a warning light, a slow warning sign, a reflecting cone at a distance of 200, 100 and 50 metres. According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the three police officers who checked the car at the intersection that night did not act in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry of Public Security, that is to say, they did not start with the vehicle under investigation at 200 metres, “place an anti-reflective vertebrae every 50 to 100 metres”, or “place a guide road”, which eventually led to an accident, and they considered that this was not a “breach of duty”.
I find, however, that the reference to a legal provision such as that of the Public Prosecution Service is totally out of context and that they do not take into account at all the basic preconditions for its application. In this normative document, this provision refers to the circumstances in which “site inspection” should be carried out, whereas in the present case it is a “patrol inspection ” , not a “spot inspection ” . If you don’t take this difference into account, then a simple example is, did you see in the street that a police car search was equipped with a 200-metre-mile reflector cone? If that is what is required by the Code of Law, would it not be possible for every red and green light to place a mirror cone in a place that is not 200 metres long enough to connect the road?
After this analysis, I feel perfectly able to convince the judges, because such a rationale is realistic, and we cannot understand the law mechanically, let alone deliberately distort it by abandoning the pre-conditions.
Since the Public Prosecution Service arrested him, I began to communicate with the court as soon as possible. The case was heard shortly before the Sasagawa County Court. The presiding judge was a young female judge, the public prosecutor was two male prosecutors, and the three police officers were dressed in civilian clothes and sat in a platoon chair, a pattern that had evolved in court.
As a result of the trials, there were not many visitors. The three accused are also one of my counsels, and procedurally, they are still going through their own defence, and I have brought one and three accused together during the examination and debate.
In addition to my close legal analysis, my defence focused on the basic common sense and rationale of judges and prosecutors. I think the law in this case is simple to apply, but in a game that has entered the circle of justice, you deliberately try to interpret jurisprudence, which is not necessarily moving, but sometimes becomes more and more confusing.
I’m talking about “victims” from the 24-hour, 24-hour working conditions of several police officers on duty, day and night duty. The repeated “extortion” of the public security apparatus was based on an over-the-counter provincial order. I have also learned from the hardships of the public security and justice workers at the grass-roots level, especially the fact that three policemen have been sending people under the fence for months, concealing their identities and fear, and the difficulties they encounter during the night while working in the three-man factory in Guangdong. His wife married him in college to take care of his father, who had fallen asleep, and had hoped for a happy life in the future, while his husband was suffering from the consequences of being caught up in the trap by night and night, telling the sad story of the failure of the public security authorities to help the Ministry, which led to the death of three policemen. Speaking of which, when I saw tears falling from among the accused, I felt that it seemed as if I could not control the tears myself.
In addition to these inflammatory remarks, my more important defence is that there are five points: the first is that the case is essentially a defined ordinary traffic accident.
On 29 April 2007, at 4.30 a.m., a tailing accident occurred between the north-to-south drive and the south-to-south drive of the truck K30601 (former) and the truck K31161 (back) driven by the Li Zeng Army. The self-loading truck K31161 crashed into the tail of the self-loading truck K30601, resulting in damage to the self-loading truck K30601 and the death of CHO Chinahua, who was in the car. The case was investigated by the Guangshan County Traffic Police Brigade and found to be a traffic accident, and on 9 May 2007 a traffic accident certificate was issued No. 2007,050. The certificate recognizes the cause of the accident and the liability of the person or cause of the accident:
“(1) The conduct of Li FN in driving the overload truck, which did not keep a safe distance from the former vehicle, is contrary to the provisions of articles 38, 43 and 48 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety, the violation of which was the main cause of the accident and the primary responsibility for dealing with it.
(2) Cai Chengyi ‘ s driving of the overload van, when he stopped on the right side in the course of his journey, acted in violation of the provisions of article 48 of the Law of the People ‘ s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety and article 63, paragraph 5, of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the People ‘ s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety, according to which the offence was a secondary cause of the accident and was liable for the secondary liability for that incident. It is clear from the above findings that the case is of a typical traffic accident nature. The accident was caused by offences such as serious overloading on both sides of the accident, failure of the rear vehicle to maintain a safe distance from the former vehicle sufficient to take urgent brake measures (art. 43 of the Road Traffic Safety Act), the incident had nothing to do with the accused in the case in question and there had been no circumstances in which the incident had occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the accused.
The determination of responsibility for traffic accidents falls within the competence of the public security traffic management authorities under the terms of the law, i.e., in the present case, it is for the competent public security traffic management authorities to make a valid determination. The case took place in the Guangshan County, where the Public Security and Traffic Administration has jurisdiction over the case, and where the Public Security and Traffic Administration issued a declaration of accident within the legal time limit and served the parties in accordance with the legal procedure, as well as informing the parties of their rights in accordance with the law, including the right to review of the determination. However, the parties did not raise any objections to this finding of responsibility, and none of the parties filed an application for reconsideration of the certificate within the statutory period. It goes without saying that the letter of recognition of the accident has acquired legal force.
In the case of the traffic accident, the death of the victim in the case was the result of the severe overloading of vehicle K31161 which did not maintain a safe distance from the former vehicle. The Public Security and Traffic Administration has determined that the driver of the vehicle, Li Zeng Army, was primarily responsible for the accident. In accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law of the People ‘ s Republic of China and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People ‘ s Court, a person who died in a traffic accident and was primarily responsible for the accident constitutes a traffic offence. Unfortunately, however, we see that the accused who are sitting here today are not the real suspects, the Forces nouvelles Li, but the three traffic police officers who are deployed strictly in accordance with the traffic squad of the Provincial Public Security Department and who are still standing at 4 a.m. in order to ensure the security of the day traffic, while carrying out their proper duties on the line of duty patrols.
My second defence is that the accused was determined to act in the present case in the proper discharge of his duties.
(i) The accused carried out patrols in accordance with the requirements of the provincial, municipal and county public security traffic management authorities for the introduction of a “joint patrol system” and their conduct was official
On 2 February 2007, the Transport Police Headquarters of the Public Security Department of Henan Province issued a circular to the Public Security and Traffic Police Division of the province to further strengthen road patrols. The circular states that, in order to strengthen road patrols, enhance road control, increase the “policing rate” and “supervising rate”, in addition to “a system of joint patrols within the municipal jurisdiction of the province’s State Roads and Province Roads ” , “a 24-hour patrol was carried out in the area of the Joint Police Unit, which is to operate at a single time, section of the road, and on the basis of the unit’s duties, so as to ensure that “the day-time police car, night-time light, civilian police on the road side and illegal traffic violations are carried out in order to ensure good order in the section of the road and that traffic violations are significantly reduced”. On February 10, 2007, the Sinyang City Traffic Police Unit issued the National and Provincial Interoperability Programme, in which it placed greater emphasis on “Improving Access to the Police and Civilian Police ” , by implementing a system of joint patrols to ensure that “the day-to-day police car, night-to-night lights, civilian police on the road, and people in conflict with the law are in charge”. Under this programme, the Luangshan County Traffic Police Brigade has deployed specific joint patrols, and in the Guangshan County Traffic Police Brigade National Road and Provincial Combined Patrol Sheet, the Public Security Squadron where the accused is located has a joint patrol segment of 213 provincial Guangshan Hotel to Peng Shop, Jia County, which is 0:00-12:00, with the patrol number S0168 Police.
On 29 April 2007, at 4 a.m., the accused ‘ s security squadron was based on the unified deployment of the above-mentioned provincial, municipal and county public security traffic police, driving the designated police vehicle to carry out joint patrol duties in the designated section of the road at the specified time.
(ii) Failure by the accused to perform his duties improperly in the course of his joint patrols
On 29 April 2007, in the early hours of the morning, the accused, in a row of three police vehicles patrolling from the south to the north to the provincial road 213 light and white, saw a vehicle light on the opposite side and heard the sound of a very abnormal car engine. The accused, judging that there was a very overloaded vehicle travelling from the north to the south, decided to slow down the police car, to turn on a dangerous alarm flash light, to order it to stop for inspection through a loudspeaker and immediately to send two patrol officers to signal, in accordance with the law, that the vehicle was slowing down in accordance with the required gestures. The patrol members were on the south side of the speed-reducing light and speed-reducing belt, while the opposite vehicle (the pick-up truck K30601 by Cai Chengyi) was on the north side of the speed-reducing light and the speed-reduction belt, which was approximately 100 metres away from each other, and the opposite vehicle immediately began to prepare for parking when it saw the speed-reducing light and speed-reducing belt and the patrol ‘ s command gesture. However, while the vehicle had not stopped, a truck that was travelling in the back of the vehicle (the RV K31161 driven by the FN) was suddenly forced to cross the vehicle to the right in the direction of the vehicle, and when it was discovered that the right could not go beyond it, it was urgently in the right direction, but it was too late to do so, and the back was hit in the back of the vehicle and there was a tailing accident.
In the post-accident investigation, it was confirmed that the authorized weight of the pre- and post-accident vehicle was 2.99 tons, but at that time it was nearly 40 tons and overloaded more than 10 times (article 92 of the Road Traffic Safety Act provides that 30 per cent of the overload is a serious violation and must be detained until the violation is eliminated). In the process, three persons from each row of the accused acted as part of a joint patrol to detect serious violations of the law and to direct the vehicle in question to stop and be inspected in a timely manner, on the following grounds:
Article 87 of the Law of the People ‘ s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety, article 33 of the Code of Conduct for Road Enforcement of Traffic Police, article 39 of the Code of Conduct for Road Enforcement of Traffic Police, and the Code of Practice for Law Enforcement of Traffic Police in Henan Province, among others.
As can be seen from the above-mentioned laws, regulations and normative documents, the conduct of the accused is fully in accordance with the rules and, therefore, the conduct of the accused is not carried out in an incorrect manner.
My third defence is that the defendant ‘ s joint patrol duties do not apply the relevant provisions of the Ministry of Public Security ‘ s Code of Conduct for Road Enforcement of Traffic Police Road Operations with regard to spot duty.
The nature of the work carried out by the accused at the time of the case is set out in Part II and is part of the system for carrying out joint patrols, so that the inspection of illegal vehicles in the course of a patrol should be carried out in accordance with the rules governing the conduct of patrols set out in the Code of Conduct for Road Enforcement of the Traffic Police of the Ministry of Public Security and should not be carried out in accordance with the rules of conduct for field operations.
(i) On point duty
The Ministry of Public Security’s Guidelines for Road Enforcement Operations of Traffic Police, which require that duty points be placed on the road “a warning sign, a warning light, a warning light, a speed-reducing sign, a reflecting cone shall be displayed continuously at 200, 100 and 50 metres from the point of duty,” are two prerequisites, one being “in the event of low visibility in the fog, rain, snow, etc., or poor conditions of road passage”; and the other being “in the event of duty duty”. The case did not, firstly, take place in the context of “low visibility or poor road conditions, such as fog, rain, snow, etc. ” ; and, secondly, was not in the process of establishing point duty. In the case in question, the incident certificate of the traffic police brigade of Kwangyama County showed that the weather conditions were clear at the time, and the testimony of many of the drivers present confirmed that the distance from which the police had been observed was approximately 100 metres. The number of metres is low in visibility and is not specified by law, but it can be seen from article 46 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Implementation of the Law on Road Traffic Safety that “the maximum speed of motor vehicle traffic shall not exceed 30 km per hour … (iii) within 50 m of fog, rain, snow, dust, hail, etc. ” . The case was clear at the time of the events, and the evidence shows that the other party saw the police command parking inspection 100 metres or more, apparently not at the time of the low visibility; the other section of the crime occurred on the provincial route 213, with good road access conditions and not “bad conditions of access”, so that even the requirement of the Code to establish point duty should not be applied to article 10 of the Code, which states that “the warning signs, alarm lights, speed-reducing signs, mirror cones should be displayed continuously at 200 metres, 100 metres, 50 metres from the duty point”.
(ii) The Prosecutor has confused the nature of the conduct of temporary parking inspections of illegal vehicles during traffic police patrols and the establishment of fixed points to check vehicles
According to the Prosecutor ‘ s logic, in any case, as long as parking is a point, it should be operated in accordance with the rules of site inspection. As can be seen from the operating protocols for temporary site inspections set out in the Rules of Practice for the Operation of the Transport Police in Henan Province, which were drawn up by the Henan General Police for Public Security and Traffic, it is possible to establish temporary and permanent sites. One of the fundamental problems is that the checkpoints refer to a region, with imports and exports, and the basic function is to inspect passing vehicles, regardless of suspected violations. The cones were also requested because of the large number of vehicles inspected and the need to isolate them from an inspection area. The use of the term “import/export” in this section of the protocol, which refers to site inspection, is sufficient to indicate that the site inspection is carried out by means of a specific inspection of passing vehicles over a period of time.
The nature of the functions of patrol inspections, which are mobile in nature and focus on the correction of serious violations, is completely different. Serious violations were detected in the course of the patrols, which, according to the law, had to be corrected immediately, with the specific requirement to be checked through loudspeakers and the use of police officers to command the parking of illegal vehicles. If such conduct is viewed as a spot-checking exercise, then there is no logical patrol. All patrols must be stopped and corrected whenever they find violations. Once a parking check is a site, it will be necessary to start markings hundreds of metres, which is clearly an extremely absurd practice and is not possible in practice. On the other hand, we can also assume that, in accordance with the logic of the Public Prosecution Service, it can also be deduced that at every roadblock, a traffic police officer who finds a suspected vehicle in violation of the law must operate in accordance with the rules of the spot check, and that the traffic police at every roadblock throughout the country is unable to inspect the vehicle in violation of the law, otherwise it would be negligent to do so. Because traffic police at traffic points are more like spot checks than patrol traffic police.
My fourth defense is that the public prosecution ignored an important fundamental fact.
There is evidence in the case file that (the interview transcript of the rear driver, Lee FN) the rear car suddenly broke up a few metres before the tailings accident with the former vehicle, which led to the loss of control of the vehicle, followed by a tailings accident, which resulted in the death of the person. This cause, while not necessarily exonerating the responsibility for the accident on the back of the driver, became an accident for the accused. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the conduct of the accused was not relevant to the outcome of the death of the victim in the present case, so it cannot be argued that acts such as the failure of the accused to set up a reflector cone are suspected of constituting negligence.
The fifth opinion is that the defendant examined Car K30601, which did not cause death or substantial property damage as a result of the defendant ‘ s conduct.
This was also an important area of error for the public prosecutor in this case, who had instinctively linked the outcome of a person ‘ s death to the conduct of a vehicle in violation of the law by the traffic police because of the death of a person in the accident. However, this link is not the legal causal link required by our determination of an official offence. As has been made clear earlier, this case is due to the fact that the rear of the vehicle, whether or not it is patrolled, command parking inspections or not, will not change the fact that the rear vehicle is seriously overloaded and that it is not kept away from the former car.
In the present case, the fact that the former vehicle was also severely overloaded and that the former vehicle had extended the brake distance has, to some extent, reduced the severity of the rear tail impact. In fact, the ex-car did not stop at all at the time of the accident, but only slowed down, and the slowdown was not merely due to the conduct of the defendant ‘ s command to stop at the scene, where there was a slowing light in the rear (north) of a few metres from the site of the accident and a ground-based slowing belt in front of the site of the accident. Even in the absence of instructions from traffic commanders, all vehicles passing through here should be slowed down under the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Act. In the site survey and in the investigation of the accident survey police, we can see that no brake measures were taken at all in the rear vehicle.
Logically, the defendant was a pre-command vehicle that slowed, without signaling or directing a post-command vehicle to stop, and when the former vehicle slowed, the latter was required by law to “maintain a safe distance sufficient to take emergency brakes”, and if the latter complied with the mandatory requirement of the law, it should not be said that the former vehicle was only slowing, even if it stopped in an emergency, and that there was no tailing incident. The reasons for this case are therefore clear and the responsibility is very clear, and the consequences of the death of the victim, CHOI Chinahua, should be borne by the driver in the rear, and the conduct of the accused was not the cause of his death. There is therefore no legal causal link between the conduct of the accused and the death of Chui China. We therefore consider that the conduct of the accused does not meet the constituent elements of negligence.
The accused carry out joint patrols in accordance with the unified deployment of the public security and transport organs of the provinces, cities and counties, within the prescribed time, route and mode. During the course of the patrol, serious violations were discovered, and the conduct of commanding the parking of illegal vehicles to be inspected in accordance with the norms and operational protocols established by law was fully justified, and the death of Choi Chinahua was the result of a serious violation by the rear driver of the vehicle, Li FN, whose death had no legal causal link with the legitimate law enforcement actions of the accused. The conduct of the accused does not constitute negligence and the accused is innocent.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that liability for the accident had already been determined in accordance with the procedure established by law since the present case, that the parties had not objected and that the parties to the issue of compensation for the damage in question had reached an agreement of conciliation in accordance with the law and had completed its implementation.
The family members of the deceased, however, have repeatedly gone to the accused ‘ s unit and higher authorities to make unreasonable complaints. In order to reflect the humanitarian spirit of the accused, and in view of the practical difficulties faced by the deceased ‘ s family, the latter has been compensated on several occasions, each time with a written expression of satisfaction and a request to the judiciary not to hold the accused criminally responsible.
However, every time compensation is paid and assurances are written, a new round of farces is created by the families of the deceased. It was also the unprincipled kindness of the defendant ‘ s unit to the deceased ‘ s family that led to the case being repeated in the prosecution service.
In a society governed by the rule of law, the most important principle of the judiciary was that it should act in accordance with the law, and it should not be unfair for the accused to find themselves in a situation where certain irregularities were not justified, even if they served their personal purposes.
For a people’s police officer who is even a few innocent, four o’clock in the morning, sacrificing their life of political life in exchange for so-called apparent harmony may create even greater insecurity. In this case, we are seeing people’s police on the road 24 hours an uninterrupted patrol, and what we are seeing is that they are still carrying out their duties in an unsupervised manner and that they are acting with due diligence, not negligence.
The leaders of the Public Security Bureau sitting in the gallery listened to my defence and turned their eyes to satisfaction. I looked at the female judge, who was almost touched by my tears, and I felt that justice could be achieved.
In June 2008, the Sasagawa District People ‘ s Court handed down a first instance judgement in the case and acquitted the three traffic police officers. The three traffic policemen have finally been able to leave their lives and return to their homes for a year and to the careful police force.
This case is closed here, and it has a certain similarity with the previous case of embezzlement by the Attorney General. The same is true of persons within the Public Prosecution Act, who are also disturbed by forces outside the law, and who are also successful in their defence of innocence.
These two cases are by no means individual cases, but I think that, in the end, the law is the law, and we cannot be deterred by forces outside the law, because once we have chosen to recede, we do not seem to be in a position to make mistakes again and again. Record number: YXA1B5kx0yXfwK3Z5oMCEGEO
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
