(Hunan — September 1, 2025) Amid China’s ongoing crackdown on human rights lawyers and dissidents, a closely watched case of “subversion of state power” has entered the trial preparation stage. Xie Yang’s defense lawyer, Li Guisheng, recently received a notice from the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court requiring him to consult the case files at court. However, he was restricted from duplicating any materials, prompting concern over the fairness of the proceedings.
Defense Lawyer Blocked from Copying Case Files
According to the court notice received by lawyer Li Guisheng on August 26, the case had entered the trial preparation process, and the lawyer was permitted to consult relevant files. However, in a subsequent letter to the court, he stated that under China’s Lawyers Law and Criminal Procedure Law, as defense counsel, he has the right to “consult, excerpt, and duplicate” case materials, and this right should not be unilaterally restricted.
Li Guisheng pointed out that for criminal cases in which the defendant pleads not guilty and the facts are complex, duplicating case files is essential for an effective defense. He noted that limiting access to “consult only” would severely undermine his ability to prepare for defense, preventing him from thoroughly examining evidence, verifying details, and forming a defense argument.
Defense Rights Undermined in the Name of ‘State Secrets’
If he cannot duplicate the materials, he would be forced to rely on memory, which he said is unreasonable and contrary to the defense rights guaranteed by law.
Under current Chinese law, once a case enters the review and indictment stage at the prosecutorate, it is within a lawyer’s right to consult, excerpt, and duplicate case files. However, in cases involving “endangering state security,” authorities often label the files as “classified” and use this as a pretext to restrict the substantive exercise of defense rights. Many human rights lawyers point out that this practice has increasingly become routine, especially in cases targeting dissidents.
Judge Blocks Co-Counsel Over Dispute on Access
On July 30, Xie’s other defense lawyer, Li Guobei, discovered that among 18 case files, 8 of them contained no classification labels. However, according to Judge Yu Dan, the National Administration of State Secrets Protection had advised that copying was not permitted. However, whether or not to allow copying should not depend on the National Administration of State Secrets Protection. A heated dispute ensued between Li Guobei, Xie Yang, and Judge Yu, after which Xie Yang dismissed Li Guobei as his defense lawyer. Reportedly, the court then barred lawyer Li Guobei, who originally served as Xie Yang’s defense lawyer, from the defense team, and the court refused to allow her to serve as defense lawyer.
Lawyers Insist on Legal Autonomy and Due Process
Li Guisheng expressed that even if the court claims the case involves state secrets, it should not unilaterally decide that lawyers may only consult but not copy. He emphasized: “The choice of consulting case files should be determined by the defense lawyer based on the needs of the case, and should not be restricted by the judges.”
Legal Community and Rights Groups Speak Out
The China Human Rights Lawyers Group issued a brief statement supporting Li Guisheng, noting that such cases are “mostly about being convicted for speech,” with charges often stemming from publicly available online comments that “contain no secret at all.” The Lawyers Group condemned the Chinese authorities for invoking “state secrets” to restrict defense rights, arguing that this undermines the legitimacy of legal proceedings.
Xie Yang was one of the few rights lawyers who continued speaking out after China’s “709 Crackdown” and has repeatedly been subjected to detention, surveillance, and repression for taking on sensitive cases.
Missed Court Appearance Raises Further Concerns
In addition, Li Guisheng pointed out that on July 30, he was unable to appear in court because he never received a notice to appear; thus, he was unable to arrange to attend court, which caused him to miss a defense opportunity. He stated that in the upcoming trial, he does not wish to be “just a decoration sitting in the defense seat,” but intends to exercise substantive defense responsibilities, including examining and challenging the prosecution’s evidence.
So far, the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court has not issued any response regarding this matter.
Reported by Special Correspondent Gao Zhensai for ChinaAid
